Fire a preacher

[tango]

By all means yes! Let's look at it some more! I am having trouble understanding the concept of preachers/pastors should not be rich and show it, but others can be rich and show it. It just sounds like a double standard to me.

Put like that it is, and a lot comes down to just what the gospel message actually is.

Some believe that following Jesus automatically means being poor and struggling through every day, and those who believe this would be hypocritical if they were to live in luxury. Therefore those do who believe this couldn't logically tolerate a minister who didn't live in at least as much poverty as they did.

Others believe that following Jesus automatically means being wealthy, in which case they wouldn't see anything wrong with a preacher being rich and showing it. To them showing off his wealth is tantamount to waving the fact he is highly blessed around.

I suspect the majority see wisdom in what Paul wrote about how he knew plenty and he knew shortage, and can accept that some people will be wealthy and some will be less so. I don't see anything in the Bible against having wealth but there are a few verses dotted around that don't speak too highly of people who merely hoard wealth. It seems to come back to the parable of the talents and warnings like Eze 7:19, Zep 1:18, Jam 5:3 etc. These seem to be warning more of the people who grew rich by taking advantage of others (e.g. James is talking of wages held back by fraud) rather than people who are merely rich as a consequence of hard work and/or sound financial management. There are also several instances in the Bible showing people who were very wealthy (e.g. Abram, Job, Solomon etc).

 

[tango]

Aside from the church though. If the preacher was not rich, but he wrote a book or series of books and the books sold well. The preacher made millions and became rich Do you fire him if he buys himself a million dollar mansion and a Cadilac with his own money that he earned off of his books? He gives to charity but does it in secretly. He does not shout it from the housetops.

I see what you are saying when it comes to the business of the kingdom. But I am not talking about that.

This ultimately comes back to a very subjective question of how much is too much.

I wouldn't bat an eyelid at a preacher who lived in a place with a bit of extra space. My former minister was married with no children and was provided with a three bedroom house by the church. He frequently hosted visitors to the church - mission partners who were visiting, former members who had left the area and were visiting etc. He hosted prayer meetings at the house, assorted meetings for elders and deacons were also held there and his wife did a lot of the usual things a pastor's wife does - her own prayer meetings, women's events etc. They couldn't have done much of that if they had been given a tiny one-bedroom apartment with no space to swing a cat.

On the other hand if a preacher bought a 20 bedroom mansion and left 18 rooms unused because he didn't actually need that much space I'd wonder if he was a very good steward of what God had given him. The issue isn't so much what a man does with his own money but what message his actions preach. If someone preaches the prosperity gospel then living in a mansion because he is prosperous aligns entirely with the message he preaches. If he preaches a message of giving to the poor and not living in opulence while others starve then it could raise some awkward questions about why he lives in such luxury.

Personally I think the man buying the private jet so he had space to pray between meetings is comical, it makes me wonder how Paul managed to do so much. The trouble is when the world sees that kind of excess and assumes that requests for charity will end up funding someone's private jet or mansion they are less likely to give. And, as I wrote in a previous post, the people who are in a position to remove the minister are unlikely to do so because they probably approve of the message or they wouldn't be in the church.

I still remember a certain television preacher who seemed to be begging for people to send him a few bucks when he was standing in front of what must have been $10,000 worth of flowers on some kind of crystal stand, and it was abundantly clear his suit wasn't a cheap thing either. Personally that was an instant turn-off - there's no way I'd send him money given what he was obviously spending on suits and flowers. If I'm going to give money I'll give it locally or to charities where I can be confident that a minimal amount of it is going to get soaked up in administration and salaries.

 

[Brighten04]

I guess the part that is difficult is that the congregation that would have the power to remove the preacher from his position are likely to be a congregation that approves of the preacher's message. If the preacher is getting rich promoting the "me theology" (or other theological toxic waste) then the chances are the congregation support it or they wouldn't be in the congregation. Hence, the preacher continues to benefit, the congregation continue to lap up the candy coated garbage he presents, and the situation perpetuates.

The gospel is good news. It is not garbage.I don't see a lot of "me theology" as much as I see bad writing and wrong interpretation of scripture. Some just irritate the daylights out of me because they piggyback their books off of each other, Example, The Power Of The Praying Wife was a great book. But The Power Of The Praying Woman was just a repeat of The Power Of The Praying Wife imho. But, the books sold well. There is a whole series of them. I don't have any problem at all with the author, so don't get me wrong. Now she has gotten rich off of those books. Shouldn't she be able to spend her money the way she wants to spend it without other people all over into her bank account?

 

[tango]

The gospel is good news. It is not garbage.I don't see a lot of "me theology" as much as I see bad writing and wrong interpretation of scripture. Some just irritate the daylights out of me because they piggyback their books off of each other, Example, The Power Of The Praying Wife was a great book. But The Power Of The Praying Woman was just a repeat of The Power Of The Praying Wife imho. But, the books sold well. There is a whole series of them. I don't have any problem at all with the author, so don't get me wrong. Now she has gotten rich off of those books. Shouldn't she be able to spend her money the way she wants to spend it without other people all over into her bank account?

I never said the gospel is garbage, I was talking about the candy coated garbage put out there by some preachers. When teaching shifts from Jesus' call to "take up your cross" to a message of "it's all good, you'll be happy and healthy and rich and life will be wonderful" the message is lost. When Jesus' warning that "narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life" shifts to an idea that all you have to do is turn up at church and don't forget your tithes (10% minimum of course, plus assorted other offerings) and then you can claim your blessings and life is easy, the message is lost. When Jesus talked of what we do unto "the least of these" and James talked of the uselessness of simply saying "be warm, be filled" to a cold and hungry man, and we turn that into a fruit machine theology that is very long on declarations and decrees and very short on actually doing anything useful (but still loudly proclaiming victory on the few occasions something does change for the better), the message is lost.

As to how authors spend their money, that's not for me to decide any more than it's for them to decide how I spend my money. I can decide whether to support their ministries or not, and if I consider them to be poor stewards I won't support their ministries. Ultimately they will give account before God, just as we all will.

 

[Alithis]

Aside from the church though. If the preacher was not rich, but he wrote a book or series of books and the books sold well. The preacher made millions and became rich Do you fire him if he buys himself a million dollar mansion and a Cadilac with his own money that he earned off of his books? He gives to charity but does it in secretly. He does not shout it from the housetops.

I see what you are saying when it comes to the business of the kingdom. But I am not talking about that.

ahh ok i see.
well in that case we can go deeper and look into what a pastor is .
and thats a hole can of doctrinal worms haha .. Jokes .

a pastor is a sheppard .. shepherds care for the flock. they don't lead the flock .. they are mentioned in the scriptures (NT) all of twice .
the position they hold today is more then bloated out of proportion . but a true pastor's heart gives to ,and for ,the care of the flock .. a true pastor's heart goes from home to home of the needy in the body caring and administering healing and to need .. a true pastors hart does not sit behind a pulpit and be separated from the flock.. a shepherd is among the flock getting his hands dirty to share the sheep and deal to thier foot rot ,make sure they are getting god pasture and not wandering off down into side line myers and getting bogged there .
a true shepherd's heart is not a heart that hoards wealth to itself ..

i offer the opinion that perhaps we need to be more picky about who our pastors should be

 

[Brighten04]

I never said the gospel is garbage, I was talking about the candy coated garbage put out there by some preachers. When teaching shifts from Jesus' call to "take up your cross" to a message of "it's all good, you'll be happy and healthy and rich and life will be wonderful" the message is lost. When Jesus' warning that "narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life" shifts to an idea that all you have to do is turn up at church and don't forget your tithes (10% minimum of course, plus assorted other offerings) and then you can claim your blessings and life is easy, the message is lost. When Jesus talked of what we do unto "the least of these" and James talked of the uselessness of simply saying "be warm, be filled" to a cold and hungry man, and we turn that into a fruit machine theology that is very long on declarations and decrees and very short on actually doing anything useful (but still loudly proclaiming victory on the few occasions something does change for the better), the message is lost.

As to how authors spend their money, that's not for me to decide any more than it's for them to decide how I spend my money. I can decide whether to support their ministries or not, and if I consider them to be poor stewards I won't support their ministries. Ultimately they will give account before God, just as we all will.

But should the preacher be fired because he/she is rich?

 

[tango]

ahh ok i see.
well in that case we can go deeper and look into what a pastor is .
and thats a hole can of doctrinal worms haha .. Jokes .

a pastor is a sheppard .. shepherds care for the flock. they don't lead the flock .. they are mentioned in the scriptures (NT) all of twice .
the position they hold today is more then bloated out of proportion . but a true pastor's heart gives to ,and for ,the care of the flock .. a true pastor's heart goes from home to home of the needy in the body caring and administering healing and to need .. a true pastors hart does not sit behind a pulpit and be separated from the flock.. a shepherd is among the flock getting his hands dirty to share the sheep and deal to thier foot rot ,make sure they are getting god pasture and not wandering off down into side line myers and getting bogged there .
a true shepherd's heart is not a heart that hoards wealth to itself ..

i offer the opinion that perhaps we need to be more picky about who our pastors should be

I guess there are good pastors and less good pastors.

At my former church the pastor was very much one of the church. It was far from rare to see him getting water for the musicians before the service. You'd often see him taking out the garbage. He had time for people who needed him - on one occasion when I'd experienced a death in the family he was available for me until late in the evening. A friend of mine once had a very specific need (I won't go into details so as not to inadvertently identify anyone) and the pastor cleared his diary for the day so he could be there to offer support and transport as needed. You could use lots of words to describe him and "aloof", "haughty" etc were most definitely not among them.

On the other hand a friend attended a church for many months, frequently providing lifts and other favors to the minister and his family. When he needed someone to do a relatively minor favor for him nobody was there. When he was sick nobody checked on him, nobody visited him. All the things he did for the minister's family were obviously thought of as a one-way street, an entitlement.

I attended a church for a time - a few months - and after I left not a single person contacted me to ask if I was OK. Compare and contrast that to my former church (the one in my first paragraph) where if I wasn't there one week a couple of friends might text me to make sure I was OK, and within 2-3 weeks someone would check everything was OK. There was no sense of pressure - no demands to know why I wasn't there - just wanting to make sure I was OK.

 

[tango]

But should the preacher be fired because he/she is rich?

It's difficult to answer that question unless you can define "rich".

I think I mentioned further up in the thread that a lot of people seem to define "rich" as "anyone with more than I have", in which case a demand that a preacher be fired for being "rich" would mean the preacher would have to have an income less than the median income for the church to be statistically likely to survive a vote on his future.

I'd have to figure that a preacher should be fired for not living a Christ-like life. If the preacher drives a modest car and wears modest clothes, that's fine. If the preacher drives a nice car and wears nice clothes, that's fine. If the preacher lives in opulence while members of his congregation have to choose between eating and heating, that's maybe not so good. But given that the preacher may be giving such that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, it would be hard to justify firing him because we didn't think he was doing enough. Maybe he was giving generously to help those in real need and not giving to someone because he knew they were bigging up their problems (from what I've seen of talking with people with a range of issues from financial shortfall to physical disabilities to learning difficulties etc, is that the people who whine the loudest usually have the least to whine about while those with very real issues tend to just get on with it the best they can).

 

[Brighten04]

It's difficult to answer that question unless you can define "rich".

I think I mentioned further up in the thread that a lot of people seem to define "rich" as "anyone with more than I have", in which case a demand that a preacher be fired for being "rich" would mean the preacher would have to have an income less than the median income for the church to be statistically likely to survive a vote on his future.

I'd have to figure that a preacher should be fired for not living a Christ-like life. If the preacher drives a modest car and wears modest clothes, that's fine. If the preacher drives a nice car and wears nice clothes, that's fine. If the preacher lives in opulence while members of his congregation have to choose between eating and heating, that's maybe not so good. But given that the preacher may be giving such that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, it would be hard to justify firing him because we didn't think he was doing enough. Maybe he was giving generously to help those in real need and not giving to someone because he knew they were bigging up their problems (from what I've seen of talking with people with a range of issues from financial shortfall to physical disabilities to learning difficulties etc, is that the people who whine the loudest usually have the least to whine about while those with very real issues tend to just get on with it the best they can).

I can agree with this. I have seen people who will not pay their bills spending their money on other things, then they want the church or the pastor to pay their bills. This is a different kind of abuse, like you said about the whiners.

 

[tango]

I can agree with this. I have seen people who will not pay their bills spending their money on other things, then they want the church or the pastor to pay their bills. This is a different kind of abuse, like you said about the whiners.

It's interesting to see the balance of love expressed through some aspects of OT law. For example these two together:

Deu 23:24-25 NKJV "When you come into your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes at your pleasure, but you shall not put any in your container. (25) When you come into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor's standing grain.

Deu 24:19-21 NKJV "When you reap your harvest in your field, and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. (20) When you beat your olive trees, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. (21) When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it afterward; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow.

These two together make an interesting point - in that we are to provide for peoples' immediate needs but not necessarily their future needs. If I walk through your field I may eat of what is growing (i.e. my immediate needs) but not take any away with me (i.e. my future needs, or any potential abuse by profiting from your work). Likewise if you harvest your field you are not to go back and glean the last few bits of crop in case someone else needs them, but you're not expected to let everyone else get first pick of the fruits of your labor.

It's good when the church steps in to help those in need, but not so good when that help ends up enabling bad stewardship.

 

[Brighten04]

It's interesting to see the balance of love expressed through some aspects of OT law. For example these two together:

Deu 23:24-25 NKJV "When you come into your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes at your pleasure, but you shall not put any in your container. (25) When you come into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor's standing grain.

Deu 24:19-21 NKJV "When you reap your harvest in your field, and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. (20) When you beat your olive trees, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. (21) When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it afterward; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow.

These two together make an interesting point - in that we are to provide for peoples' immediate needs but not necessarily their future needs. If I walk through your field I may eat of what is growing (i.e. my immediate needs) but not take any away with me (i.e. my future needs, or any potential abuse by profiting from your work). Likewise if you harvest your field you are not to go back and glean the last few bits of crop in case someone else needs them, but you're not expected to let everyone else get first pick of the fruits of your labor.

It's good when the church steps in to help those in need, but not so good when that help ends up enabling bad stewardship.

My pastor was remarking on these scriptures today in his end remarks and the end of Sunday School. Here in America, going into someone's field will get you shot. LOL. But I get your meaning,
But, stewardship of God's blessings is a personal thing isn't it? If you are a preacher/pastor and you come into wealth, lets say millions of dollars, the stewardship of that is between you and our Father in Heaven, would you agree?

 

[tango]

My pastor was remarking on these scriptures today in his end remarks and the end of Sunday School. Here in America, going into someone's field will get you shot. LOL. But I get your meaning,
But, stewardship of God's blessings is a personal thing isn't it? If you are a preacher/pastor and you come into wealth, lets say millions of dollars, the stewardship of that is between you and our Father in Heaven, would you agree?

Yes, ultimately we will answer to God. But if a preacher is bringing a message of "give all you have to the poor" while sitting on millions of dollars himself, then he is not practising what he preaches and the church would be reasonable in moving him on. For me the issue would be brazen hypocrisy rather than the precise number of dollars the preacher happens to have accumulated.

 

[Alithis]

I guess there are good pastors and less good pastors.

At my former church the pastor was very much one of the church. It was far from rare to see him getting water for the musicians before the service. You'd often see him taking out the garbage. He had time for people who needed him - on one occasion when I'd experienced a death in the family he was available for me until late in the evening. A friend of mine once had a very specific need (I won't go into details so as not to inadvertently identify anyone) and the pastor cleared his diary for the day so he could be there to offer support and transport as needed. You could use lots of words to describe him and "aloof", "haughty" etc were most definitely not among them.

On the other hand a friend attended a church for many months, frequently providing lifts and other favors to the minister and his family. When he needed someone to do a relatively minor favor for him nobody was there. When he was sick nobody checked on him, nobody visited him. All the things he did for the minister's family were obviously thought of as a one-way street, an entitlement.

I attended a church for a time - a few months - and after I left not a single person contacted me to ask if I was OK. Compare and contrast that to my former church (the one in my first paragraph) where if I wasn't there one week a couple of friends might text me to make sure I was OK, and within 2-3 weeks someone would check everything was OK. There was no sense of pressure - no demands to know why I wasn't there - just wanting to make sure I was OK.

in the first instance , sounds like a pastor's heart for sure

 

[tango]

in the first instance , sounds like a pastor's heart for sure

Very much so. That church is blessed to have him as a pastor. I was blessed to have him as my pastor. I'm still blessed to know him - the only reason I don't attend the church is because I moved away from the area. We don't get to visit very often but when we do, take a guess which church we visit on Sunday mornings?