A preacher friend and I were talking about church finance. He told me of an experience that left me shaking my head in wonder. The context is that this brother has faithfully served in the same congregation for well over 20 years. The church never has provided a living wage so he’s had to supplement his salary by driving bus. Among the congregations I’m familiar with, this is not unusual.

Where the story became surreal is when my friend told me about being invited to speak one Sunday at another congregation. The other congregation gave him a modest honorarium. This, in my opinion, is only good and right – particularly as travel was involved. After all, “the laborer is worthy of his hire.” Upon his return, someone in his home congregation objected. “You’re double-dipping!” he stated. “You’re already receiving a salary to speak and you should pay the church back for the Sunday you missed!”

Say what?! I couldn’t believe the gall of this guy. For over 20 years the salary you’ve paid your preacher was so paltry he couldn’t make ends meet and now you want him to refund part of it? When did he become your slave with no time off? Since when did it become any of your business what he does on a vacation day? As long as it doesn’t interfere with what he’s agreed to do for the local congregation, what difference does it make if he receives a little income from somewhere else? If what he makes is such a concern to you, why don’t you pay him a living wage? I wonder what this guy would think if his employer demanded a salary refund for any moonlighting he did.

I fully agree that those who serve in the church should not regard their their work as they would secular employment. But where do churches get the idea that it’s okay to exploit those who serve them? As a personal example, a church some 4 hours away asked me to come and speak to them. It turns out there was some miscommunication on their end between the mission committee which invited me and the preacher. As a result, I ended up with a total of 5 minutes to speak during the morning service. No one asked us to lunch afterwards, so my wife and I were on our own. Then, a traffic accident added 2 hours to our return trip. Gas and a meal out of our pockets on top of 10 hours of driving for the privilege of speaking 5 minutes! And the church didn’t give us a thin dime for our trouble. To be fair, this particular congregation regularly supports the mission work I do, so maybe they thought that entitled them to a visit from me. But still! It sure didn’t make me feel very appreciated.

In contrast, how refreshing it was to encounter a church on the other end of the spectrum. I once held a seminar for a small congregation. Afterward I found out that when the men gathered to discuss what they should pay me, someone said, “Be generous. Knock his socks off with generosity.” They did, and it made me feel very appreciated. They’ve continued the tradition. Whenever they have me speak, they pay good money. In addition, at times someone in the church has paid for a hotel room so my wife and I could come down early and have a mini-vacation. They are also good about taking us out for meals. It’s meant so much to me that I try to copy their example at the congregation where I serve.

Unfortunately, it’s not only churches which have strange ideas about compensation. Preachers can be just as guilty. Perhaps one of the most benign self-delusions preachers have is that they don’t have to tithe their income from the church. They justify this attitude by claiming that their compensation from the church actually should be higher than it is. The difference between what they get and what they should get is their tithe. “After all,” they say, “if the church did pay me the higher amount I’d just have to pay taxes on it and why should the Lord’s money be taxed?”

That argument has just enough logic in it to seem half-way plausible. However, when you stop and think about it, it involves at least one lie. Preachers who do this are under-reporting their compensation to the Internal Revenue Service. If the church has not agreed to the higher salary, and to withhold it, then it isn’t compensation and the preacher can’t truthfully claim that it belongs to him but he merely didn’t collect it. Therefore he’s lying to himself and/or God. On the other hand, if the higher amount truly is compensation because the church has agreed to pay, yet withhold the amount, then the preacher is understating his income. Thus lying to the IRS.

At least this group of preachers acknowledges that they should pay tithes. There’s another group who claims that preachers and other church leaders are exempt altogether from returning a portion of their compensation to the Lord. They try to justify it by using the Old Testament priesthood as their example. Since the priests in the Old Testament collected tithes from everybody else, they protest, isn’t it self-evident that they didn’t pay tithes? This merely shows the ignorance of the protester. If they ever bothered to read the Law they’d find out that the priests were expected to pay a tithe of the tithes they collected (Numbers 18:26-28, Nehemiah 10:38-39).

But these irregularities pale beside the preachers who claim control over all the contributions made to the church. I know of preachers who pocket the entire offering, claiming it belongs to them. (I suppose people make out checks in the preacher’s name?) Then they dole out sums at their own discretion for expenses. More than likely, rather than dip into the funds they’ve already pocketed, they will ding the congregation to give even more to meet expenses. Personally, I find the practice repugnant. And, depending on the details, it may even be illegal. It certainly is not transparent and there is no accountability. It’s a practice which is ripe for abuse and leads to delusions of grandeur on the preacher’s part. Show me a preacher who claims all the offerings as his and I’ll also show you a man who refuses to let go of any power.

How, then, should church finances and preacher pay be handled? It might not always be possible – particularly when a congregation is small and just starting up – but my conviction is that a preacher should not have any power of the purse at all. He will probably need to know how much is donated but he should not know who donates what or how much. Two unrelated persons should count each offering. It goes without saying that their tally should match the deposit slip. The Deacons should prepare the church’s budget. Obviously, the budget should reflect the vision and the direction of the Elders and/or the preacher, assuming the congregation does not have Elders. The congregation should have the opportunity to approve the budget. It might be advantageous for the church to grant a preacher an expense account, but a preacher should not have signature authority on the bank account. The church administration should be totally transparent about where the money goes. Each month a copy of the church’s income statement and balance sheet should be posted where the congregation can see it.

While tithing is no longer commanded, giving in proportion as a person prospers is the standard under the New Covenant (Deuteronomy 16:7, Acts 11:29, 2 Corinthians 8:11-12). Having said that, I tend to think that a tithe of income should be the beginning point for a church leader. A preacher or other leader should not play games by counting phantom income as his tithe. Instead, he should give a portion of whatever money he actually receives, whether it be much or little.

In regard to preacher compensation, there is no question that “a laborer is worthy of his hire.” A congregation does have an obligation to compensate those who labor among them, teaching and preaching the Word. If possible, a congregation should pay its leaders a living wage. If they are unable, then they should not begrudge leaders whatever funds they manage to come up with from other sources to meet their needs. For their part, leaders should not expect a congregation to support a lifestyle which is higher than that of the members.

My personal decision has been to follow the example of Paul and not burden the congregation I serve, by taking a salary. I am bi-vocational and don’t need compensation from the church. Not only does this free up money which the church can use for other purposes, part of my reason for not taking a salary is to set a good example for those I mentor. I don’t want anyone to fall into the trap of thinking of church work as a career or occupation rather than a calling, a vocation. However, I also do not wish to deprive the church of the grace of giving. So, if they offer an occasional honorarium, I receive it with thanks for the extra blessing it is.

Along with the idea of calling, if a church asks me to come and speak to them, or I’m asked to speak at a rally, I don’t set any terms or conditions. If the locale is further than I can easily drive to, I may ask to stay in someone’s home, but I do not ask what they will pay, or even if they will pay me for coming. When you go expecting nothing, then whatever you receive is a blessing, not a right.

As in all things, when both leaders and the congregations act in love with the goal of bringing glory to the Lord, the questions of finance and pay will resolve themselves. Let’s take our egos out of the equation and leave our compensation in Christ’s hands. He is more than capable of supplying our personal needs as well as those of the church!