Is accepting monetary/material compensation for preaching "the word" conflict of interest...?

Question

I mean beyond a reasonable level. Church leaders with million$ bank accounts, fancy cars, clothes, etc. paid for with followers money. When did religion become an occupation?

Answer 1

As Peter wrote at 2 Peter 2:3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.

Here, Peter refers to false teachers who lie to the people, encouraging them to give money to a "religious" cause, yet they greedily keep most of the money.

We are to evaluate evangelists, teachers and prophets by their "fruits." If a person's fruits prove he or she is profiting inequitably from God's word, we should turn away from that person.

This is all part of the apostasy of the end times.

Peace.

Answer 2

No. The Bible clearly teaches that a minister of the gospel has the right to be paid to preach. I agree that excesses should be avoided. Much of what you see surrounding a preacher is owned by the church. People do give large sums of money to churches and other property of great value. This is Biblical. The church and its staff need to be supported like any other business---a church is a business. The cost of running any business is very high these days. Church leader need to be sensitive about appearances, though. Even though CEO's of giant corporations throw stockholders' money around like it was waste paper and they get away with it, the clergy is expected to hold a higher standard. Religion is a chosen career. In modern times it has turned from a vocation to an occupation out of necessity. Because of the changing world churches require the use of technology and educated people in order to survive---we can thank government and all of its ridiculous paperwork and record keeping for that. I will admit that there is waste in every church, but this is no different than in government and any corporation.

Answer 3

It depends on what you mean by "beyond a reasonable level". The Apostle Paul teaches that an 'ox should no be muzzled while he treads out the corn', and a person who labours in the word full-time needs to live somehow.

Accepting money is not where the conflict lies. It has everything to do with the motive. The preacher is obligated to preach the Word whether he gets paid or not.

The practise of many preachers today is to set an honorarium for themselves, before they will come to speak. There are certain speakers in North America today who are in such demand that they ask for, and receive thousands of dollars per day for conference ministry. This I find objectionable.

SO YES, it CAN be a conflict of interest. But it doesn't have to be. It has everything to do with the motive of the speaker. If I receive 2 invitations from 2 different Churches Ina given Sunday, I could be tempted to accept the church that will give me the larger honorarium for speaking. I feel it would be wrong for me to make a decision based on that criterion.

Answer 4

1 Corinthians 9 lists seven reasons why a preacher can be paid from the church treasury.

That being said, I know of no churches with million-dollar bank accounts that simultaneously preach the truth. Every place I've ever preached paid me less that the starting salary for a school teacher in the same area, and the congregation had just enough money in the bank to hold them a few months if contributions would drop suddenly (due to members getting sick, traveling, dying, etc.).

I've said for years that I could make a fortune as a preacher if I weren't a Christian!

Answer 5

It became an occupation back in the days of Aaron... that is, the moment of implementation. The priests received a portion of the fat (the tasty part... the 'rich' part) from the sacrifice. Plus, they got yearly tithes, 10% from each person. If there's 10 people in the tribe, they earn as much as the next guy. If there's 20 people in the tribe, they earn twice as much.

Since Christ came, tithes are no longer necessary, but instead, we are called to give as much as possible. Hence, it would not be uncommon to see %1 percent, all the way to 100%. If a preacher happens to become wealthy from preaching, more power to him... as long as his wealth comes from a *portion* of what is given, and the rest is used on the church, the congregation, the community, and the poor.

Answer 6

It should not be a conflict of interest,but sadly in this day and age,it has caused some to be puffed-up,greedy, and vain. In the early churches, those who believed were of one heart and soul;neither did anyone say that the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. Nor was there anyone among them,who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them,and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.

We who are in Christ, do not own, what we are blessed with,it is the Lord's. And should be used for the Kingdom's sake.

I believe we would have no welfare system, if all church's gave to feed and clothe the hungry and poor,the sick and outcasts of today's society,the lost and confused. Our love and actions would speak louder than words. It should not be an occupation, but a call to worship,in Spirit and Truth.

James 1;27 Pure and undefield religion before God and the Father is this; to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

Answer 7

Yes. Any sort of spiritual or psychic help for the exchange of money is immoral. Most true psychics and spiritualists will tell you that they will not charge money lest they feel their abilities will be taken away. And if you ever are seeking spiritual counsel and are asked for a credit card (such as on the internet, etc.), then they probably are not for real.

And btw...mainstream religion (mostly fundamentalist Christianity) has ceased to be a "religion" a long time ago. It has been merely a Political Movement, and yes--an Occupation, for centuries.

Answer 8

Hey i agree with you on that. It seems quite in exces for that to happen I can thik of alot of other places that money could go to be a help to people with other needs. I have never agreed with these tv evangelists with mansions and fancy cars etc. I do not claim to know God's position He can judge for himself but it does not seem right. In our little church our minister has a full time job as well as teaching us the word. He is a repairman for the local school. No one takes from the church in a big way. there are alot of ministries that are supported through our congregation even though we are small there are alot of big hearts.

Answer 9

To answer your Q, Jesus never introduced 'paid ministry' at all!!!
... and neither did any of the apostles!!

In fact Jesus said, "Foxes have holes, and wolves have dens, but the Son of Man [meaning Himself] hath not where to lay His head".

Neither were any of the prophets of God paid for preaching.
In fact, many were tossed out of the city, or jailed like Paul ... Holy writ is full of ample descriptions of their lives.

Many would work a while, then go out preaching for some fair period of time, probably when they had saved enough to do so.
So, in reality, they used their savings, they didn't get paid to preach and baptize.

No, these concepts such as wearing costly apparel and payment for church work were introduced by man ... after all the apostles were killed and people lost the true way and lost the Church and Authority of God.

However, having said all that, if you check out 'the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints' today, you will see that it has all of that right ... and much more:
No paid ministry - all members are invited to serve to lessen the load on the bishop; a prophet and 12 apostles have been restored to Christ's Church, and lead it today; and most importantly, it has direct Authority of God to administer in all of the things of God.

CHECK IT ALL OUT FOR YOURSELF ON:

http://www.lds.org

Answer 10

Making a modest living in a religious occupation is not necessarily a conflict of interest. Everybody needs money to live, and that includes pastors, missionaries, etc. 1 Corinthians 9 discusses this.

Now, when it comes to pastors who are wealthy -- I personally have problems with that. A multi-millionaire pastor does not have the heart of Christ -- if he did he would selling everything he owns to help the poor and needy (that's just biblical).

The real question is whether it's ok for anyone to be that wealthy? Personally, I think not.