Once upon a time, a congregation was between pastors. They asked a man to serve as vacancy pastor. Having a full-time job, and knowing their financial plight, for three years this man did not accept pay for his weekends preaching and teaching. Years later, people in the congregation would talk about what a good pastor he was, that he gave his paychecks back to the congregation.
It was certainly a generous and lovingly sacrificial thing to do. But what happens in the future when other pastors work full-time caring for the congregation and need their paychecks? According to the Gospel, we don't get what we deserve; God always gives us better than we deserve. If people cannot pay for a pastor, should they be deprived of one? Seems to me the answer should be "no." And yet, how then would the pastor provide for his family?
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Could it not also be true that the congregation is not getting what they deserve in a pastor who is turning his paychecks back to them? How blessed that congregation is!
ReplyDeleteIf the congregation is (essentially) not paying the pastor and still blessed to have one, that is certainly God's undeserved goodness to them.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I wonder, though, is what happens later. The thing such a congregation learns is that it is NOT their responsibility to provide temporally for the pastor (regardless of what the Table of Duties says). It becomes easy to begrudge the amount of money spent on a pastor's salary. "I mean, after all," they may say, "if he really cared about serving God, he wouldn't care about the money. Doesn't God say he shouldn't be a lover of money? Shouldn't he be willing to do that pastor-stuff just out of the goodness of his heart?"
Some Luther quotes here:
ReplyDelete"As Christians enjoy the ministry of the Word for nothing, so they, in turn, should support and defend the ministers for nothing and give them food and clothing...
"When, therefore, we accept our sustenance from the church, this is not a payment equal in value to that gift which is so precious that it could not be paid for by the riches of the whole world [Luther is speaking of the absolution]. But since this great and inestimable gift can be administered only through human beings, who need food and clothing, it is necessary to support and sustain the ministers."
Also from Luther:
"God commands those who hear the Word of God to give the priests to eat and to drink, just as Moses also commanded the Children of Israel to give the Levites their livelihood and sustenance. And the Lord Christ says in the New Testament: God and preach and "eat such things as are set before you" (Luke 10:8). He wants the hearers to support the preachers, who are neither to eat nor to drink of their own property. For it is not wrong for a preacher, in turn, to be supported; nor do preachers thereby sell Baptism and the Gospel for money; they give everything for nothing. And in this way both truths are safeguarded: that I am not to sell these blessings but should teach for nothing, and that the hearers are not to buy them but should have them for nothing. I should preach to you, and you should support me."
When the congregation refuses to support its pastor, that says something about what the congregation believes about God, what they believe about what the pastor is feeding them. It would be completely unimaginable to say: "Yes, yes, what you give me is what makes me live. What you give me is true life, and I need it more than anything else on earth. Now, I will leave you to starve and fend for yourself, because you should not be concerned with money."
To say "well, the old pastor did [whatever]" is simply an excuse of the evil, vile, sinful flesh. Faith clings to and support that which makes it stronger (namely, that which gives it Christ). For the congregation, this is the pastor.
I am not to saying that all those who don't support their pastors don't have faith in Christ as their Lord and Savior - not at all. I'm sure most do. But I think that the problem of not supporting the pastor is still indicative of a deeper problem - one regarding their faith. And what they are in need of the most is the one who will strengthen their faith - Jesus.
Yes, true, in our sinfulness we can begrudge that. But the reality of living in this world is that we all must pay bills of some sort. In each of the parishoner's vocations do they do it out of the goodness of their heart to help their neighbor? Or do they expect fair compensation? The table of duties also talks about us serving our neighbor, and our pastors can certainly be referred to as our neighbor. Are we not helping him and his family when we treat them as we would expect to be treated?
ReplyDeleteYou're right. At least, I can see that when we're talking about other pastors and their families. But when it's about your own income, it's easy to think that you're being greedy. It's easy to think that you should be more giving, more sacrificial, less desirous of "filthy lucre" as the old translation says.
ReplyDeleteBut as my father-confessor told me once, we are never (in this life) capable of having entirely pure motives. So we go with what the Word of God says. So maybe I suspect that I want the pastor to get a paycheck simply because *I* want to have money to go to the grocery store. But my selfish motives do not override God's word in the Table of Duties: the congregation is to provide for their pastor, because "where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
If only I could have the loving heart to be concerned mostly for the congregation's faith (and the resulting fruit which demonstrates their cherishing of the Word via their gifts to sustain the ministry) instead of worrying that God will not provide for the pastor's temporal sustenance.