Dynamic Yet Consistent

Last week at church we ended a 1.5 month sermon series on the Kingdom of God by discussing what it means to participate in the Kingdom; one of the passages we looked at was Mat 20:1-16, the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard.  The main point is that in the Kingdom everyone is compensated fairly, but not necessarily equally.

That reminded me of an article I had read recently about the link between pastor’s salaries and church growth:

The researchers examined whether pastors earned more in years when their churches saw congregations grow and their pay suffer if membership declined. It turns out United Methodist congregations gave their leaders a $15 boost (in 2008 dollars) on average for each new member added (about 3 percent of new revenues generated from the membership increase) and cut their pay by about $7 for each member lost.

[You can read the whole article here on Slate: The Almighty Dollar: Are preachers motivated by the desire to save souls or to make cold, hard cash?]

Things like this give me great pause as I ponder what is the most faithful, biblical, and fair way to handle financial compensation for those working in the church.

I have long stated that people in ministry should not expect to make more than the average household income for the community they are called to serve (That is a bit over $30K here in Warren County).  Of course I don’t see that as a hard-fast rule, but rather as a starting point; in fact, I struggle with the idea of pastors getting paid at all – but that is for another post.

In a multiple-staff situation things get even more complex.  What is fair compensation for everyone when we are willing to think about it “Kingdom” terms?  Here are a few models I think we can consider:

• Compensate based on “market” value – unfortunately this is the way most churches operate without even considering other options.  This approach forces a business mindset and causes people to think about “moving up the ladder.”
• Compensate equally – pay everyone the same wage regardless of their position.  The full time janitor makes the same as the senior pastor.
• Compensate based on skills / training – a cross between the two approaches above.  The doctor makes more than the M.Div who makes more than M.A. who makes more than the college grad… This approach doesn’t value one role over another, but does reward people who made the financial / educational sacrifices to be better prepared.  You could easily extend this thinking to compensate for years of work, additional training / skill sets, etc.
• Compensate based on need – The young married couple has less financial need than the single father living with his two kids, or the older lady who has high medical expenses and is taking care of her parents.  This approach is the most selfless of all, but the hardest to implement.

These questions are especially difficult (and important) when you start working through real situations.  I came from a multiple-staff church where how you answer the “fair compensation” question would have major impact on people.  We had a 5:1 pay ratio (the highest paid full-time staff member made at least 5 times what the lowest paid full-time staff member made), a wide variety of education levels (High School educated up to M.Div and everything in between), a huge span of years of service (fresh into ministry up to several decades), and an extremely diverse set of living situations (stable married couples without kids, up to individuals with major medical expenses and other extenuating circumstances).

I don’t think there is a right answer to these questions (although I do think there are plenty of wrong ways to handle it).  The big problem is that people generally refuse to discuss these matters.  If you want to know the quickest way to shut people up in a staff meeting, then just suggest you talk about salaries.

It is generally assumed that all churches will take the first approach and simply pay based on market value.  The problem with this is that is short-circuits meaningful discussions about the theology of ministry and the call to live by "Kingdom" standards.  People in ministry are paid through the tithes and offerings of people who believe they are contributing to God’s work.  At a minimum, we all should expect those in ministry to think long and hard about what is the best use of God’s finances when it comes to compensating staff fairly.

When you take the "market value" approach to ministry it forces you to only look inward.  All of the other approaches require ministers to contemplate the Kingdom as a whole and also to consider the situation and contributions of those they serve with.  It is not easy, but I think all of our churches would be better off if we at least entertained the question.

A church where the senior pastor makes the same as (or less than) the janitor would certainly turn a few heads, and I am convinced it is a more accurate implementation of the lessons from Matthew 20.  Just imagine how strong a church’s witness could be if they compensated based on Kingdom standards instead of worldly value.  It would certainly force people to take the message of the Kingdom of God serious if ministers were willing to "step out on faith" and change the way they viewed their salaries.

How can we expect those in the church to earnestly seek their place in the work in the Kingdom, if we do not evaluate some of these basic and essential questions about how the church operates.

Thoughts?

I fear the legacy of Martin Luther King has been lost in popular society.  We have acknowledged his role in bringing about racial equality, but have failed to remember his poignant words concerning peace and systemic injustice.  He not only fought (non-violently) for equal rights, he stood firmly for the cause of universal peace and justice regardless of who it was standing against it.

King was notably critical of the inaction and complacency of the church.  I am reminded of this as I reread his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.  He does not mince words in calling out those who stand by in the face of hatred and oppression.  Many of his words perfectly mimic the juxtaposition of hope and pain that I feel concerning the church.  I have included a few segments from the end of his letter (emphasis mine).

I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who ‘has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of Rio shall lengthen.

…

In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, on Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

…

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? l am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great-grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators"’ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.

Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Par from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom, They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment.

…

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,

Martin Luther King, Jr.

I don’t know if you all have seen this yet, so I thought I would share.  It is a satirical piece by Ray Stephens entitled “Would Jesus wear a Rolex.”  In addition to the video, I have included the lyrics below.

Obviously the song is written in a humorous way, but many truths are told in jest. Would Jesus wear a Rolex? Would he have a 52″ television? Would he drive a Lexus? Would he drive at all? Would he take a $100K+ salary? Would he take any salary? Would he live a life of luxury? Would he live like an average American?

I have a sneaking suspicion we all know the answers to these questions, but are we bold enough to try and follow his standard?

Woke up this mornin’, turned on the t.v. set.
there in livin’ color, was somethin’ I can’t forget.
This man was preachin’ at me, yeah, layin’ on the charm
askin’ me for twenty, with ten-thousand on his arm.
He wore designer clothes, and a big smile on his face
tellin’ me salvation while they sang Amazin’ Grace.
Askin’ me for money, when he had all the signs of wealth.
I almost wrote a check out, yeah, then I asked myself

(chorus)

Would He wear a pinky ring, would He drive a fancy car?
Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressin’ room have a star?
If He came back tomorrow, well there’s somethin’ I’d like to know
Could ya tell me, Would Jesus wear a Rolex on His television show.

Would Jesus be political if He came back to earth?
Have His second home in Palm Springs, yeah, a try to hide His worth?
Take money, from those poor folks, when He comes back again,
and admit He’s talked to all them preachers who say they been a talkin’ to Him?

(chorus)

Just ask ya’ self, Would He wear a pinky ring,
Would He drive a fancy car?
Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressing room have a star?
If He came back tomorrow, well there’s somethin’ I’d like to know:
Could ya tell me, would Jesus wear a Rolex,
Would jesus wear a Rolex
Would Jesus wear a Rolex
On His television show-ooh-ooh?

A few days ago I asked, “Are the sins of the church more grievous for those who believe in God or those who do not?”  Now I want to take the time to unpack that a bit more.

Regardless of who you are or where you come from, it is not hard to find things to criticize the church for: There is the clergy sexual abuse cases and financial scandals.  You have the stories of people like Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard.  There is corruption and abuse of power at every level.  Countless Christian churches and organizations are known more for their hate and bigotry than their love.  We have pastors who wear Rolexes while people starve.  And all of this happens in the name of God.

So who should find this more appalling?  Is this type of behavior more troublesome for Christians or for those who do not beleive?

On one hand, those who have experienced the radical love and grace of Jesus should find these acts particularly disturbing because they tarnish the face of Christianity.  If you have found your life woven into the tapestry of the Christian story then stains on the fabric reflect and affect you.  Only those who fully grasp the message can realize just how contradictory these corporate sins are.

Yet on the other hand, if you reject the story of God and Christianity, the inconsistencies are even more glaring.  There are been countless acts of violence and hate committed in the name of God.  How much worse are those acts if God does not even exist.  It is one thing to bomb an abortion clinic if you are doing it because you think you are purifying society in God’s name.  But, if there is no God then these actions are completely lacking justification.

It is one thing for pastors to live extravagant lives built upon people’s tithes (literally money given to God) if they think it is justified by scripture.  But, if God does not exist then these people are diverting people’s charity without furthering any noble cause.

I don’t have the answer to these questions, but I can say this.  As I have allowed myself to wrestle with the notion that there may not be an all powerful God who is active in creation, I find my displeasure with the church exponentially increasing.  If God does not exist then humanity has spent an inordinate amount of time and resources on petty and self-seeking things when those same resources could have been leveraged to bettering all of creation.

Just think if we had built hospitals and schools instead of sanctuaries and steeples.  What if we had sent people to heal the sick instead of convert the heathens?    Imagine a world where instead of paying pastors we paid to provide clean drinking water and basic health care to all people.

Only those inside the church can understand the true message of the church and realize the depth of grace, love and forgiveness this institution is called to.  But at the same time, we need to hear the voice of those on the outside as they lament what could have been.

Masturbation is the epitome of selfishness and represents the degradation and perversion of something selfless and beautiful.  Unfortunately the church (especially in America) can, and often does, display this same behavior.

However you look at it, masturbation is completely self-pleasing.  There is no consideration of others; all actions are based on selfish desires that are fulfilled in the easiest way possible.  It is often based in fantasies that are degrading and show fictive dominance.  It replaces relationships with internal transactions.  What is most troubling is that masturbation is based on something that is sacred and special: the sexual relationship between two people who love each other.  Sex provides intimate depth to relationships and has the potential to be an amazing example of self-less mutual pleasure.  Masturbation short-circuits all of this.

I have been in too many situations where local churches also short-circuit a beautiful design and replace it with something self-seeking.  The church is called to be the bride of Christ, the very hands and feet of an incarnate God.  The church is God’s agent of reconciliation in this hurting world.  The church is called to see a a better world and to partner with God to bring that about.  The church should be an outpost of hope by being a collection of broken people who find hope and direction in the promise of something more.  Yet all of this can get traded for a structure that is self-pleasing, lacks consideration for others, seeks easy fulfillment for selfish desires, can be degrading and dominant, and replaces relationships with internal transactions.  The existence of many churches is nothing more than a source of masturbatory fulfillment for its members.

This critique is most evident when one explores the finances of most churches.  Members “tithe” and “give their money to God” yet if you follow the paper trail, most of that money comes back to the members.  It is like a pay-as-you-can country club.    Consider this:

• In the United States roughly 1/3 of all tax-deductible donations went to houses of worship.
• That amounts to over 103 BILLION dollars ($130,000,000,000.00)
• Of that, “85 percent of all church activity and funds are directed toward the internal operations of the congregation”
• That means “Christians” spend over 87 BILLION dollars, money that was supposedly “given to God,” to benefit themselves.

According to a recent Christianity Today article:

The money given by the people in the pews, it turns out, is largely spent on the people in the pews. Only about 3 percent of money donated to churches and ministries went to aiding or ministering to non-Christians.

Talk about self-pleasuring!

It is troubling enough to see how selfish church budgets actually are. But, what is most devastating and deceptive is the fact that we do this in the name of God and think we are fulfilling his will.  We take the image of being faithful and stroke our own desires and needs with it.  We convince ourselves we are being self-sacrificing, but at the end of the day we are only meeting our own needs (not only within the church, but our need to feel we have contributed).

Lifeway Research presents similar findings.

It goes beyond just money.  Think about volunteer work within the church.  In your congregation what percent of opportunities to serve are simply tasks that are necessary to perpetuate the current structure.  Are these things actually furthering the Kingdom of God, or are they simply making sure we can enjoy the worship services and opportunities we have come to expect.

This self-seeking understanding of church and Christianity is deeply ingrained in how we think:

• We choose churches where the worship matches our preferences and the pastors are entertaining.
• We expect churches to provide programs that meet our needs.
• Welcome gifts are the norm – we are literally spending money on people so that they are more likely to join our selfish structure.  Tell me this, if someone comes in church with real hurt and needs redemption, is a coffee cup going to heal them?
• We market our churches (intentionally and unintentionally) so that we can appeal to the aesthetic needs of people and not the spiritual needs of people.
• Our sermons tend to focus on feel-good motivation and “practical application” and often avoids the difficult reality of who we are and we are called to be.  There is no expectation of real sacrifice.
• Very few churches reflect the diverse tapestry of the communities they serve.  How often do prostitutes and CEOs find themselves in the same Sunday School class?

We expect churches to meet our needs.  And by participating we not only personally reap the benefits, but we feel like we are fulfilling our spiritual obligations.  Instead of spiritual masturbating in private, we flaunt it in public, which makes it all the more disgusting.

Church Staff and Porn

If we are going to explore the nature of the church, we have to be willing to examine how church staffs operate.  The typical church budget pays out 50% for staff salaries.  A full half of our giving goes to pay professional spiritual people.  If churches themselves are examples of auto-erotic hedonism, then I believe the way we view church staff is not much different than the way individuals use pornography.

• Porn employs professionals to “do the dirty work” so actual relationships are not needed.
• Porn stimulates you so feel like you are in the experience when actually you have no real connection to what is going on.
• Porn is on demand you can call on it when you need to.  They work to fulfill your needs.
• Porn stars fake it so you get a better show.

Having worked at a church for several years, I know first hand that these are true of how staff are utilized as well.

• Parishioners feel like they are connected to “God’s Work” because they pay the salaries of people to actually do the things.  There is little need connect with actual people.  We expect the pastor to visit the sick, study the word, pray with the dying, help the needy.  As long as someone is doing those things we feel fulfilled.
• We expect church staff to not only do our spiritual dirty work, but also to meet our needs.  As long as our kids have good programming, the sermon is not boring and worship is engaging, we are happy.  We are more likely to criticize a pastor for not providing us with what we expect than we are to criticize the work they do beyond the walls of the church.
• Church staff members know they have to make things look good.  “Spiritual” words are sown into conversations to make things appear to be more important than they are.  We call mundane upkeep “ministry” so that people don’t realize we are still just reinforcing a selfish structure.

Don’t get me wrong, I know a good number of pastors and staff members who are embodying and expanding the incarnational love of Christ.  We can’t blame staff for the problems of the church — we are all in this together.  That being said, we must all acknowledge that paying pastors 6 figures while ignoring the plight of the poor and marginalize can be described as nothing short of sin.

Conclusion

In a world where 30,000 children die every day of preventable diseases, malnutrition and unclean water, and where the poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for only 5 percent of global income, it is unacceptable for the church to sit around pleasuring itself.  We can no longer be content with a view of Christianity that encourages selfishness while feeding the illusion of spiritual depth and community impact.  If the result of our involvement in church is that we feel better about ourselves, but do not understand how we can participate in the larger redemptive work of a loving God, then we are done nothing more than masturbated our needs and egos in the name of Christ.