# The church's deal wiht the devil



## Randy (Oct 5, 2011)

You have heard me rant before about the church and it's deal with the devil.  The deal where they are not allow to be political and non-profit.  I have always said they should desolve this deal and take America back.  Well now they are, sort of:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/b...tml?_r=2&scp=1&sq=The Political Pulpit&st=cse

The problem here is the church tells me to abide by gooberment LAWS.  But that apparently does not apply to the church.  They now want to be political (yea, finally)  but they still want to be non-profit.  They are going so far as to dare the gooberment to push the issue.  Why does the church feel I should give Ceasar what is his and them not have to?  Why not pay taxes and take back America?


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 5, 2011)

Randy said:


> You have heard me rant before about the church and it's deal with the devil.  The deal where they are not allow to be political and non-profit.  I have always said they should desolve this deal and take America back.  Well now they are, sort of:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/b...tml?_r=2&scp=1&sq=The Political Pulpit&st=cse
> 
> The problem here is the church tells me to abide by gooberment LAWS.  But that apparently does not apply to the church.  They now want to be political (yea, finally)  but they still want to be non-profit.  They are going so far as to dare the gooberment to push the issue.  Why does the church feel I should give Ceasar what is his and them not have to?  Why not pay taxes and take back America?



Randy....not sure why you get all hung up on the non-profit/for-profit tax status of churches.  It makes no difference in the real world.

A church's status will do nothing to their influence in their community.


Question for you Randy, do you take any deductions on your 1040?  If so, why?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

I think if a church operates as a business, and not a non-profit, then it should be taxed accordingly.  But, even if they are taking advantage of non-profit status, they are still operating under the law.  It is the law that has to be changed, I do not see hypocracy from them if they are taking using exempt status legally.

That being said, they are typically operated as a business, and _should_ be taxed accordingly.  A preacher making well over 6 figures can get his housing allowance tax-free.  I got no problem with the 6 figures, that's up to the elders (in those churches which still use elders, many new churches call them "advisors"), I do have a problem with tax free housing.  If I don't get it, why should the preacher at the mega-church?


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 5, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I think if a church operates as a business, and not a non-profit, then it should be taxed accordingly.  But, even if they are taking advantage of non-profit status, they are still operating under the law.  It is the law that has to be changed, I do not see hypocracy from them if they are taking using exempt status legally.
> 
> That being said, they are typically operated as a business, and _should_ be taxed accordingly.  A preacher making well over 6 figures can get his housing allowance tax-free.  I got no problem with the 6 figures, that's up to the elders (in those churches which still use elders, many new churches call them "advisors"), I do have a problem with tax free housing.  If I don't get it, why should the preacher at the mega-church?



Because that is the law.  Just like the farmer who gets farming subsidies.

There's laws for taxes.  They all abide by them.  If they don't, they get shut down by the IRS.

Oh...and btw, Churches pay taxes on certain pieces of revenue as well.  Such as the sales in the book store that are for the spiritual calender's etc.  It's called UBI (unrelated business income).


----------



## Randy (Oct 5, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Randy....not sure why you get all hung up on the non-profit/for-profit tax status of churches.  It makes no difference in the real world.
> 
> A church's status will do nothing to their influence in their community.
> 
> ...



Only the ones llowed by law.  But I just do the 1040EZ so there's not much to it.

My hang up is this.  Religion has been and is being removed from our society schools etc.  We are electing people who could give a rip about it.  Our pastors need to be able to stand up and tell their congregation who to vote for or who not to.  According to the article they now intend to do that even though they know that is a violation of the law.  The church tells me to obey the laws yet they are apparently not required to?  And yes I have a problem with church's being non-profit.  They are not, never have been and never will be.  Many churches make more money in a given town that any other business.


----------



## Randy (Oct 5, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Because that is the law.  Just like the farmer who gets farming subsidies.
> 
> 
> income).



But they do not want to obey the law now.  They want non-profit and still be political.  That is against the law.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 5, 2011)

Randy said:


> Only the ones llowed by law.  But I just do the 1040EZ so there's not much to it.



Wow...really?  That is the exact same position that is held by the church.



			
				Randy said:
			
		

> My hang up is this.  Religion has been and is being removed from our society schools etc.  We are electing people who could give a rip about it.  Our pastors need to be able to stand up and tell their congregation who to vote for or who not to.  According to the article they now intend to do that even though they know that is a violation of the law.



So...you want the American voter to be dumbed down even more?  Why can't you research candidates for what they stand for and make your own informed decision?  You trust a church to make that decision for you?



			
				randy said:
			
		

> The church tells me to obey the laws yet they are apparently not required to?  And yes I have a problem with church's being non-profit.  They are not, never have been and never will be.  Many churches make more money in a given town that any other business.



You obviously don't know what non-profit means.  Non-profit does not mean "make no money."  Non-profit means that all profits that are made by the company are returned to the business and not to share holders/owners.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 5, 2011)

Randy said:


> But they do not want to obey the law now.  They want non-profit and still be political.  That is against the law.



Then let them pay the penalty's for it.  Kinda like you speeding...or hunting over bait


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 5, 2011)

Randy said:


> But they do not want to obey the law now.  They want non-profit and still be political.  That is against the law.



Stop saying "they".
"Some" do not obey the law.

I've never been associated with a church that didn't speak to all the issues detailed and contained in God's word....... abortion, same sex marriage, capital punishment, liberalism verses conservativism, the difference in the republican and the democrat platforms.  I've never known a preacher who felt the need to censor his lessons due to fear from the government.  
But I would never tell a congregation who to vote for.  Even though I think some people need to be told.  

If there's a group of preachers that want to take on the IRS we've got to remember that some people just don't know how to make the best use of their time. 

As far as the paying taxes issue.  I'd suggest that everyone take all the tax breaks they can legally find.  Take them now and never feel bad about it whether you're an individual, church, or preacher.
You never know when they'll be taken away.  

No matter how much I pay it never seems to be enough for them.


----------



## Randy (Oct 5, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Stop saying "they".
> "Some" do not obey the law.
> 
> I've never been associated with a church that didn't speak to all the issues detailed and contained in God's word....... abortion, same sex marriage, capital punishment, liberalism verses conservativism, the difference in the republican and the democrat platforms.  I've never known a preacher who felt the need to censor his lessons due to fear from the government.
> ...



Sorry, I was specifically refering to the ones in the article I linked to.


----------



## Randy (Oct 5, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Wow...really?  That is the exact same position that is held by the church.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No in this article these preachers want to preach politics from teh pulpit, which I think needs to be done.  But they still want to be non-profit which is against the law. 

Yes just liek a pastor has to preach the hard word sometimes becasue the congregation just is not following God's word so he has to lead them into why they need to vote for or against a person.  Mind you I don't need that but many do.

Share holders/owners in the case is the church and the pastor.  You can never make a profit if you give it all back to them.  Slice it how you want but there are lots of churchs that have huge nice buildings with pastors making  well over 6 digits.  You can say well that is OK but when there are people in the church or the comunity that need help it is not OK.  There is a "local" church that is always toughtingwhat they do for people in the community.  They coudl do a whole lot more if thepastor did not make well over 6 figures and the church was just comfortable not extravagant.  In fact, they may even get more money if they were not that way.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Because that is the law.  Just like the farmer who gets farming subsidies.
> 
> There's laws for taxes.  They all abide by them.  If they don't, they get shut down by the IRS.



And how does that counter anything I said.  I think that portion of the law should be changed, I never said they were wrong for taking advantage of it.



rjcruiser said:


> Oh...and btw, Churches pay taxes on certain pieces of revenue as well.  Such as the sales in the book store that are for the spiritual calender's etc.  It's called UBI (unrelated business income).



BTW, I know what UBI is (accounting major).  I saw no need to get into the intricacies of tax law.  And they only pay taxes on it if they report it, and the lines as to what qualifies are clear by law, but can be blurred if one tries hard enough.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

Randy said:


> Only the ones llowed by law.  But I just do the 1040EZ so there's not much to it.



Don't do that, your giving money away.......get as much back as you can, itemize.  If you can deduct it, you do not owe it, and it is your money.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> You obviously don't know what non-profit means.  Non-profit does not mean "make no money."  Non-profit means that all profits that are made by the company are returned to the business and not to share holders/owners.



Or to high salaries, or multi-million dollar water fountains.....I can give you a few examples if you need.  

The point is that the non-profit status is relevant to the concept that the Church is giving to the community.  That is not happening in many of them.  A weekly concert and speech is not, I believe, the intent of the non profit status.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> As far as the paying taxes issue.  I'd suggest that everyone take all the tax breaks they can legally find.  Take them now and never feel bad about it whether you're an individual, church, or preacher.



X2!!  It is YOUR Money.  Keep it!  Don't give them one penny more for government waste.

I also think a preacher should make as much as he can, it is the responsibility of the board of directors (Elders) if the congregation believes it too much.

My only point was that the housing allowance for folks making six figures didn't make sense.  If I were a preacher, I would use it.  I just think there should be a salary cap on benefits, there is on the child credit, and most other credits you get.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 5, 2011)

The Red Cross is nonprofit, but it's head officer makes several hundred thousand a year if I remember correctly.

I've personally always thought a preacher and his family should be required to live on as little income as possible....  That way, all the other folks at church can be satisfied that he's earning his money.  That's right, a godly preacher is a pore preacher.

Can I have an amen?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> The Red Cross is nonprofit, but it's head officer makes several hundred thousand a year if I remember correctly.
> 
> I've personally always thought a preacher and his family should be required to live on as little income as possible....  That way, all the other folks at church can be satisfied that he's earning his money.  That's right, a godly preacher is a pore preacher.
> 
> Can I have an amen?



I can't amen that Mr. Ronnie, I think a man should earn as much as he can, preacher or not.  I just think that if the head of the red-cross got tax-free housing, after making several hundred thousands, I would want the same treatment.  And there is a pastor in Woodstock Ga who makes 250k + a year.  The mega-church I used to attend refused to make the pastor's salary public, which I can see both sides of that argument also, but feel it probably should be public.

I believe the premise behind the concept of tax-free housing is that most churches, traditionally, could not afford to pay the preacher very much, so their housing was part of their salary.  That concept is lost on the modern pastor who goes to the highest bidder.  But, I do not hold it against him, I hold it against the tax laws which have drifted away from reality.


----------



## jmharris23 (Oct 5, 2011)

JB. Mr Ronnie was using the wonderful tool of sarcasm in his post I do believe


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

jmharris23 said:


> JB. Mr Ronnie was using the wonderful tool of sarcasm in his post I do believe





....it was totally lost on me, feel pretty dumb.....


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Oct 5, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> The Red Cross is nonprofit, but it's head officer makes several hundred thousand a year if I remember correctly.
> 
> I've personally always thought a preacher and his family should be required to live on as little income as possible....  That way, all the other folks at church can be satisfied that he's earning his money.  That's right, a godly preacher is a pore preacher.
> 
> Can I have an amen?



Just curious...is that your bassboat in your avatar?  If so, how did you afford it, if you don't mind my asking?


----------



## Randy (Oct 5, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Don't do that, your giving money away.......get as much back as you can, itemize.  If you can deduct it, you do not owe it, and it is your money.



I don't have anything to deduct.  Everything I have is paid off at present.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 5, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Just curious...is that your bassboat in your avatar?  If so, how did you afford it, if you don't mind my asking?



moonlightin'


----------



## Randy (Oct 5, 2011)

I do not think a pastor should take a vow of poverty as Catholic Priests do but I have a hard time giving to a church who's pastor wears $1000.00 watches, wears 500.00 suits, lives in a huge house and a church that is more like a crystal cathedral.  Maybe I am just used to these small town pastors who drive pickups, wear Timex and sport coats if any coat at all.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 5, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Just curious...is that your bassboat in your avatar?  If so, how did you afford it, if you don't mind my asking?



Funeral and Wedding fees.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 5, 2011)

jmharris23 said:


> JB. Mr Ronnie was using the wonderful tool of sarcasm in his post I do believe




I'm afraid I was being very sarcastic.

Believe me when I tell you that I've heard it all when it comes to preacher's salaries.

"Why should the preacher get paid more than I make?"
"Why should "I" have to pay for the preacher's kids to go to college?"  (that's one of my favorites)
"The preacher doesn't deserve "that" kind of salary, he only works 3 hours a week!"
"Why should "I" have to pay for the preacher's gas when he visits the hospital?  No one buys my gas when I visit someone who's sick."
"Why should the preachers wife get to wear better dresses than I wear?"


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 6, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> The Red Cross is nonprofit, but it's head officer makes several hundred thousand a year if I remember correctly.
> 
> I've personally always thought a preacher and his family should be required to live on as little income as possible....  That way, all the other folks at church can be satisfied that he's earning his money.  That's right, a godly preacher is a pore preacher.
> 
> Can I have an amen?



There is no reason that a preacher can't be fruitful or prosperous. Our pastor is prosperous (mediocre). He and his family personally sponser a lot of kids that go to the church school. He takes a trip to Israel every year and funds for others to go too. He makes sure that the families that want to adopt children from a specific orphanage in Russia, get back up. We have about 30 kids from one orphange that all know each other...how awesome is that?  God will give you what you need to operate....money, cars, food, clothes whatever. 
Don't we always say that we will know them by their fruit?

It is a business...the most rewarding business ever, the highest paying business ever, the most merciful business ever, a business that will last forever.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 6, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I'm afraid I was being very sarcastic.
> 
> Believe me when I tell you that I've heard it all when it comes to preacher's salaries.
> 
> ...



Oh don't listen to all that debil talk? Ask the HS to shut your ears to it, and while you're at it rebuke it. I rebuke it for you!


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 6, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Just curious...is that your bassboat in your avatar?  If so, how did you afford it, if you don't mind my asking?



I hope that's a joke.
If not, I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 6, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Funeral and Wedding fees.




hahahahahahahahaha! I bet those pay high dollar!


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 6, 2011)

Randy said:


> I don't have anything to deduct.  Everything I have is paid off at present.



Wow! You are blessed!

God blesses you to bless others! Thank you God!


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I'm afraid I was being very sarcastic.
> 
> Believe me when I tell you that I've heard it all when it comes to preacher's salaries.



I know this is a sensitive subject for those in the ministry, any time money is discussed, folks get tense.  But, not all ministers are like you.  You say you visit sick people.  The pastor of the last church I attended said from the pulpit many times that it was not his job to visit folks in the hospital.  Then, the congregation of yes men, wanting to belong, would shout 'AMEN!'  I have no problem with a Church paying for a preachers gas when he is going to a hospital.  I have no problem with a preacher makign a bunch of money.

I do have a problem with a preacher who has a half million dollar home, a 6 figure salary not including additional 10's of thousands in "pastoral care" getting tax free housing.  I do have a problem with old laws not being re-worked to recognize the reality of modern chruch structure.  The preacher I mentioned in the first paragraph only worked 4 days a week (which includes the one sermon he gave twice on Sunday morning, and that was the only gathering of the week for this church....no Sunday night, no Wednesday night), and he did nothing church related on the other 3.  He did not do "pastor" type stuff, and he was proud of that fact. 

And before anybody tries to tell me that I do not know the whole story, I assure you I do. I was very close to this organization. It's all part of why I left the Church locally, and as a whole.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

> and he did nothing church related on the other 3



...then how was he "working" the other three days if he didn't do anything church related?  Was he working in another job or something?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> ...then how was he "working" the other three days if he didn't do anything church related?  Was he working in another job or something?



Either I mis-typed, or you misread.  He only worked 4 days a week.  The other three were spent doing what you and I would do in our free time.  I got no problem with it, except that he acted over-worked and got tax free housing.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

Ah.....I mis-read.  I was reading it like he preached on Sunday and did nothing the other three he was working.  I got ya.

Like literally played golf three days a week or something?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Ah.....I mis-read.  I was reading it like he preached on Sunday and did nothing the other three he was working.  I got ya.
> 
> Like literally played golf three days a week or something?



Not sure, he has a wife and kids.  The point was not the three days off (even though Sunday was a half-day, so it was more like 3 1/2), the point was that outside of his office hours (9ish to 4) he had a standing policy that he is not to be bothered.  No hospital runs, no Tuesday night visitation, no weekly Bible-study, etc.  Then, he would tell the congregation that they had to "serve."  So, the folks in the audience who worked 5 or 6 days a week were also guilted into giving another day of their life to "serving," which he was unwilling to do.  That left the congregation with one day (if they only served one) out of seven to take care of family business.  Yet, this goober couldn't be bothered after 4 p.m. on a Tuesday night if your mama passed away, that was the job of the small group leaders (aka unpaid volunteers).  Total mess.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Randy said:


> I don't have anything to deduct.  Everything I have is paid off at present.



State and local taxes?  Sales taxes, property taxes?  All of these are deductible, but might not add up to the standard deduction you get from the EZ.  I'm sure you have calculated it both ways.  I am just passionate about folks not giving one penny more than they have to to the gov't.


----------



## Randy (Oct 6, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> It is a business...the most rewarding business ever, the highest paying business ever, the most merciful business ever, a business that will last forever.


No a business makes a profit or does not stay in business.  But I agree with you.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

> ...that was the job of the small group leaders (aka unpaid volunteers).



Well....he's kind of right...isn't he?  Probably just the attitude he approached it with that was wrong, right?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Well....he's kind of right...isn't he?  Probably just the attitude he approached it with that was wrong, right?



Not if he is calling himself a "pastor."  At that point, the donations of the congregation are paying him to do what they do not have time or calling to do.....right?  I get that we should all minister to each other, but if you are getting paid for it, you should probably do it.


----------



## Bama4me (Oct 6, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I know this is a sensitive subject for those in the ministry, any time money is discussed, folks get tense.  But, not all ministers are like you.  You say you visit sick people.  The pastor of the last church I attended said from the pulpit many times that it was not his job to visit folks in the hospital.  Then, the congregation of yes men, wanting to belong, would shout 'AMEN!'  I have no problem with a Church paying for a preachers gas when he is going to a hospital.  I have no problem with a preacher makign a bunch of money.
> 
> I do have a problem with a preacher who has a half million dollar home, a 6 figure salary not including additional 10's of thousands in "pastoral care" getting tax free housing.  I do have a problem with old laws not being re-worked to recognize the reality of modern chruch structure.  The preacher I mentioned in the first paragraph only worked 4 days a week (which includes the one sermon he gave twice on Sunday morning, and that was the only gathering of the week for this church....no Sunday night, no Wednesday night), and he did nothing church related on the other 3.  He did not do "pastor" type stuff, and he was proud of that fact.
> 
> And before anybody tries to tell me that I do not know the whole story, I assure you I do. I was very close to this organization. It's all part of why I left the Church locally, and as a whole.



JB... I understand your sentiment and frustration.  And, there are always going to be bad apples in every bunch.  However, regarding the tax-free housing, it's likely you don't know why that exists.

Ministers are typically consider a hybrid when it comes to employment.  In certain ways, they're considered as an employee, and in other ways they are considered by the government to be self-employed.  Though ministers work for a church, they pay 100% of their social security taxes... not half like normal employees of a company.

In order to allow ministers to have an even playing field, the government allows ministers to not pay federal taxes on their housing payments.  However, that doesn't apply to property taxes.  Also, ministers are able to avoid tax on expenses integral to their position... such as money spend on gas traveling to a hospital.  If you'll research the idea, the government does much of the same things for self-employed people.

That said, don't blame the minister for the tax code he lives under.  If you think the system is unfair, put that blame where the tax code originates.  I assure you that most ministers I know don't make a bundle of money... work hard... and struggles with helping people with the problems of life.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

> Not if he is calling himself a "pastor." At that point, the donations of the congregation are paying him to do what they do not have time or calling to do.....right? I get that we should all minister to each other, but if you are getting paid for it, you should probably do it.



You're kidding....right?  The pastor gets paid to do the things that the congregation doesn't have time to do?  Please tell me you're kidding.

The pastor doesn't magically get all the spiritual gifts that those in the congregation are lacking.  He doesn't "fill the gaps".  We are all called to minister to each other.  We are all given specific gifts and are called to use them to further the kingdom.  We are called to "rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn".  That is not a specific calling to a "pastor".  It is to all believers.  

I know lots of pastors who are horrible counselors.  It takes a specific type of personality and gift to do that effectively.  I know lots of pastors that just are introverts...not people persons.  So visiting hospitals etc is very awkward for them and the people they visit....but they are phenominal teachers of the word and wonderful disciplers.  There are people in those bodies who are tremendously gifted in the areas of comfort and counsel.  They should use them even if they work 5 days a week.

How should Andy Stanley, for instance, minister individually to 10,000+ people?

In the most real sense, the pastor is not getting paid to do what he is called to do...he is being supported by the congregation because of his specific calling...just like a missionary would be supported.  You don't pay him to visit your mom in the hospital because you have a full-time job and don't have time.  You don't pay him to go to a funeral in your place because Georgia is playing Florida at noon and you're not missing it....let the pastor go....he gets paid to do it!


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Bama4me said:


> Ministers are typically consider a hybrid when it comes to employment.  In certain ways, they're considered as an employee, and in other ways they are considered by the government to be self-employed.  Though ministers work for a church, they pay 100% of their social security taxes... not half like normal employees of a company..



Bama, You are correct, and there are multiple work-arounds and ways money can be titled and moved, but I think you do not understand where I am coming from.  I am not going to lay out my educational background, but it is topic relevant.  My wife also worked for a church for many years.  I have a brother in the ministry (who I do taxes for) and have several close friends who are "head pastors" of various churches.  

From what I understand, the preacher, in the old days, was given a residence (parsonage) and the tax deduction was given in lieu of a parsonage because the parsonage was always considered in lieu of salary.  This is in addition to your points, which are also valid.



Bama4me said:


> Also, ministers are able to avoid tax on expenses integral to their position... such as money spend on gas traveling to a hospital. .



As they should be because every profession can write off business related expenses.  I believe you missed a few of my quotes.



Bama4me said:


> That said, don't blame the minister for the tax code he lives under.  If you think the system is unfair, put that blame where the tax code originates.   .




Again, I think you may have missed my multiple comments where I was very specific in stating a preacher should take whatever deductions possible, and that the code was to blame.  I also think that the write-off should remain, but should be relevant to income (like the child tax credit).



Bama4me said:


> I assure you that most ministers I know don't make a bundle of money... work hard... and struggles with helping people with the problems of life.



I know a few, but know more of the "new" model of pastor who does as little as possible, and puts the actual "pastor" role on the congregation.  This type of position is akin to a business owner who gives a speech once a week then delegates everything else associated with the business.  Which is also fine, I guess.


----------



## Bama4me (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> You're kidding....right?  The pastor gets paid to do the things that the congregation doesn't have time to do?  Please tell me you're kidding.
> 
> The pastor doesn't magically get all the spiritual gifts that those in the congregation are lacking.  He doesn't "fill the gaps".  We are all called to minister to each other.  We are all given specific gifts and are called to use them to further the kingdom.  We are called to "rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn".  That is not a specific calling to a "pastor".  It is to all believers.
> 
> ...



Hammer met nail in this post HF... and it's biblical also.  In Ephesians 4:11-12, we read... "And He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers to equip the SAINTS for the work of ministry." In our world today, the church has often been trained to to think "we hire and appoint leaders to do the work of ministy for us."  Yet, the New Testament indicates these people should be helping to train/equip the SAINTS to be doing the work of ministry.

That said, there has been/always will be some ministers and leaders who enjoy this situation... pride is a very dangerous trap for ministers/leaders to fall into.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 6, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> ....it was totally lost on me, feel pretty dumb.....





Six million dollar ham said:


> Just curious...is that your bassboat in your avatar?  If so, how did you afford it, if you don't mind my asking?



I am sure SMDH feels the same....


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> You're kidding....right?  The pastor gets paid to do the things that the congregation doesn't have time to do?  Please tell me you're kidding.



Head pastor says "it's not my job to visit you in the hospital."  Ok.  Fine.  Then it is the job of the congregation to leave their day job, which they give a portion of their earnings to the church to support the head pastor, and go do those things that a pastor has traditionally done. Is that what you are arguing for?




Huntinfool said:


> We are all called to minister to each other.



I am asking this with all sincerity, did you read my entire quote that you quoted from, particularly where I said exactly what you said here?



Huntinfool said:


> How should Andy Stanley, for instance, minister individually to 10,000+ people?



He shouldn't.  I have opinions on this more relevant to another thread, but a congregation that size is too cumbersome to be effective on the individual level.  I believe that chourch would be ten times more effective and nimble if busted into 100 small churches.

But, the bigger point is that Andy Stanley is influencing pastors with congregations of 200 to act the same way, hands-off the "ministering."




Huntinfool said:


> In the most real sense, the pastor is not getting paid to do what he is called to do...he is being supported by the congregation because of his specific calling...



In the situation I am talking about, one speech a week, then 3 days of delegating with an elder board who act as "advisors," which is to say when they become elders, they are told their job is to validate the pastor who chose them.



Huntinfool said:


> just like a missionary would be supported.  You don't pay him to visit your mom in the hospital because you have a full-time job and don't have time.  You don't pay him to go to a funeral in your place because Georgia is playing Florida at noon and you're not missing it....let the pastor go....he gets paid to do it!





I think you are looking for more than is there.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I am sure SMDH feels the same....



The intent of the two comments was completely different.  I honestly don't think any of you are actually reading more than 1/3 of what I am saying.  

For instance, HF telling me something I just told him and Bama asking me not to blame pastors when I made clear in multiple threads that I blamed the code not pastors.


----------



## Bama4me (Oct 6, 2011)

JB... I'm sure there are many out there who try to work as little as possible... and there's no excuse for it whether it's in the workplace or the ministry.  And, I'm sure that some churches may be "money-making" outfits that try to squeeze profits out of everything.

However, a lot of what you seem to have a problem with originates with the leadership structure of a church.  I'm not going to rehash everything because it's can be found in an older thread, but God never intended the church to be "pastored" by one man.  Congregations in the New Testament had "elders" (not an elder) appointed... and these were not necessarily the men who preached (the reason "pastors"/"evangelists"/"teachers" were noted in Ephesians 4:11).  In the congregation I attend, there are five elders (also can biblically be called "pastors", "bishops", "overseers", or "shepherds").  The man who does the preaching is not one of them... because he doesn't meet the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3:1ff and Titus 1:5ff.


----------



## Bama4me (Oct 6, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> The intent of the two comments was completely different.  I honestly don't think any of you are actually reading more than 1/3 of what I am saying.
> 
> For instance, HF telling me something I just told him and Bama asking me not to blame pastors when I made clear in multiple threads that I blamed the code not pastors.



Realize when I quote your comment, everything I write in a post isn't directed at your comment alone.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Bama4me said:


> Hammer met nail in this post HF... and it's biblical also.  In Ephesians 4:11-12, we read... "And He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers to equip the SAINTS for the work of ministry." In our world today, the church has often been trained to to think "we hire and appoint leaders to do the work of ministy for us."  Yet, the New Testament indicates these people should be helping to train/equip the SAINTS to be doing the work of ministry.
> 
> That said, there has been/always will be some ministers and leaders who enjoy this situation... pride is a very dangerous trap for ministers/leaders to fall into.



Again, a pastor who works 4 days a week, and no more, asking a man who already works 5 days a week to volunteer time to ministry is a bit hypocritical.  I hope anybody can see that.  I have no problem with the lay person doing ministry, and I agree it is required.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Bama4me said:


> However, a lot of what you seem to have a problem with originates with the leadership structure of a church.  I'm not going to rehash everything because it's can be found in an older thread, but God never intended the church to be "pastored" by one man. .



Now we're talking!



Bama4me said:


> Congregations in the New Testament had "elders" (not an elder) appointed... and these were not necessarily the men who preached (the reason "pastors"/"evangelists"/"teachers" were noted in Ephesians 4:11).  In the congregation I attend, there are five elders (also can biblically be called "pastors", "bishops", "overseers", or "shepherds").  The man who does the preaching is not one of them... because he doesn't meet the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3:1ff and Titus 1:5ff.



I think I remember you and I being on the same page with that one.  And you are correct, my problem is with the current structure.

And for everybody else:
1. I know that lay-folk are supposed to be minsiters also.
2. I wish all pastors got paid well.
3. I think every citizen should pay as few taxes as is legally possible.
4. I think a pastor in the wealthiest 5% should not get a housing allownace that folks who make less than him do not get.
5. I do not hold #4 against the pastor.
6. God bless America!


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> You're kidding....right?  The pastor gets paid to do the things that the congregation doesn't have time to do?  Please tell me you're kidding.
> 
> The pastor doesn't magically get all the spiritual gifts that those in the congregation are lacking.  He doesn't "fill the gaps".  We are all called to minister to each other.  We are all given specific gifts and are called to use them to further the kingdom.  We are called to "rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn".  That is not a specific calling to a "pastor".  It is to all believers.
> 
> ...




Can't be said any better.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 6, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Again, a pastor who works 4 days a week, and no more, asking a man who already works 5 days a week to volunteer time to ministry is a bit hypocritical.  I hope anybody can see that.  I have no problem with the lay person doing ministry, and I agree it is required.



Note:  My comments aren't directed to JB, but to anyone who might read.

I think that sometimes the man in the pulpit and the Bible teacher spends too much time arguing church doctrine rather than exhorting and encouraging all Christians to do good and love each other.

When a Christian has to stop by the hospital after work to visit a sick Christian, it shouldn't be looked upon as a "burden" of being a Christian!!!  It should hopefully be a desire of their heart to offer strength and encouragement to a fellow Christian.
When there's a death in a congregation, the preacher should seldom be the first person at the family's house.  Other Christians should probably beat him there.
My wife doesn't prepare and take food to the sick of the church because she's my wife.  Many others better be doing the same thing.

Here's the deal:  "The preacher/pastor is not there to take some of the Christian burdens off your shoulders."

Just because he visits doesn't mean you shouldn't.
And just because you don't know what the preacher is doing this afternoon doesn't mean he's not doing God's work.


----------



## Bama4me (Oct 6, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> And just because you don't know what the preacher is doing this afternoon doesn't mean he's not doing God's work.



That's one thing very few people know... the amount of time a minister spends working outside the office.  The preacher at the congregation I attend often studies as much at home using his laptop as he does in the office during the week.  He has also been known to work 12 to 14 hours on Sundays at times also.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Just because he visits doesn't mean you shouldn't.
> And just because you don't know what the preacher is doing this afternoon doesn't mean he's not doing God's work.



Ronnie, this has gotten almost comical.  I have said three times now that lay folks were supposed to be ministers 

Now that I have said it four times, does anybody else want to assert that I am supposed to do ministry?  HF actually repeated verbatim what I said and he quoted.  I mean really, lets overlook #1 in my last post.

As to the rest of it, whats the point of addressing it?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Bama4me said:


> That's one thing very few people know... the amount of time a minister spends working outside the office.  The preacher at the congregation I attend often studies as much at home using his laptop as he does in the office during the week.  He has also been known to work 12 to 14 hours on Sundays at times also.



In this situation, he was not.  It was Church policy.  He worked 3 1/2 days and no more.  Then, on top of 5 weeks vacation (which he also took), he also got a month long sabatical.  Then, he got to where he was only preaching about half the time, they had a "teaching team."  So, this man made 6 figures delegating for 3 1/2 days a week.  I got no problem with that.  I have a problem with him telling me I had to give twice as much time as he was willing to give.  And I have a problem with a tax code which gave him his housing allowance tax-free.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

> I am asking this with all sincerity, did you read my entire quote that you quoted from, particularly where I said exactly what you said here?



Yes....I did.  But you didn't say exactly what I said.  You said this...



> I get that we should all minister to each other, but...



It's the "but" that is causing the problem.  It reads like this and is the entire reason you're getting push back on it.

"Yeh yeh...I know what the Bible says.  But it's MORE important for him to do it since he's getting paid."

It's this phrase that's paired with it that is causing the recoil:



> the donations of the congregation are paying him to do what they do not have time or calling to do.....right?



You said that we're paying him to do what we, essentially don't want to do.  I know you worded it differently.  But that's what you implied.  We don't "have the time" to do it simply means that we won't prioritize serving each other over something else that we give more value to.

So we're paying HIM to do it....and then you followed it up with "I get that we should all minister to each other, BUT..."  That's what you're getting push back on.  It's the implied meaning of what you said...not the words you wrote.  It reads like a tongue-in-cheek admission that we should serve (but not really because we pay somebody to do that).



The greatest Christian excuse of them all when asked to serve...'I've prayed about it and I just don't think I can add one more thing to my life right now'.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 6, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Ronnie, this has gotten almost comical.  I have said three times now that lay folks were supposed to be ministers
> 
> Now that I have said it four times, does anybody else want to assert that I am supposed to do ministry?  HF actually repeated verbatim what I said and he quoted.  I mean really, lets overlook #1 in my last post.
> 
> As to the rest of it, whats the point of addressing it?



I'm sorry that it seemed my comments were made directly to you, cause they weren't.
I left the forum, then realized I didn't make that clear at all.  I've made a correction to that last post.  My comments were not made to you(even though I kept using the word 'you', but were in general.

Sorry bout that.  The keyboard syndrome got me.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> You said that we're paying him to do what we, essentially don't want to do.



No I didn't.



Huntinfool said:


> I know you worded it differently.  But that's what you implied.



No it isn't.



Huntinfool said:


> We don't "have the time" to do it simply means that we won't prioritize serving each other over something else that we give more value to.



....like work a job to earn money to feed your family and donate to the local non-profit church which otherwise could not pay the pastor?  You have missed my point entirely.



Huntinfool said:


> That's what you're getting push back on.  It's the implied meaning of what you said...not the words you wrote. .



It's what you read, not what I said.  Again, how many times is somebody going to tell me that it is not the pastor's fault that he gets a tax break, when I had said that many times?  



Huntinfool said:


> It reads like a tongue-in-cheek admission that we should serve (but not really because we pay somebody to do that)..



Again, no.

HF, for a man with as few facts as you have, you make way too many assumptions.  You have no clue as to what I give in the spirit of service.  You have no clue what the church was like.  I wasn't the only one who became absolutely disgusted with this place.

As to the rest, you decided what I was saying before you finished reading it.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I'm sorry that it seemed my comments were made directly to you, cause they weren't.
> I left the forum, then realized I didn't make that clear at all.  I've made a correction to that last post.  My comments were not made to you(even though I kept using the word 'you', but were in general.
> 
> Sorry bout that.  The keyboard syndrome got me.



Thanks.  It's all good


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 6, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> HF, for a man with as few facts as you have, you make way too many assumptions.  You have no clue as to what I give in the spirit of service.  You have no clue what the church was like.  I wasn't the only one who became absolutely disgusted with this place.
> 
> As to the rest, you decided what I was saying before you finished reading it.



The problem is, every church is different...every pastor is different...every congregation is different.

I've seen some pastor's get paid well and earn every bit of it.  I've seen others get paid well and run the church into the ground.

It is like anything in life, you can't set a certain salary bar for all and hold fast to it.  What is acceptable?  What isn't?

What I do know is that our govt allows churches to be non-profit.  So, why is that a problem?  Churches should not tell their congregation how to vote, they should preach the Word of God.  It says we shouldn't murder.  It says we should work hard.  It says those that don't work shouldn't eat.  

*Preach the Bible and your congregation will know who to vote for and who not to vote for.*
And if it is still unclear, print out the bios of the people running for office and where they stand on the issues and tell people to decide for themselves.  That is not illegal.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

> ....like work a job to earn money to feed your family and donate to the local non-profit church which otherwise could not pay the pastor? You have missed my point entirely.



There are 168 hours in a week.  I work 40.  I sleep 49.

For me, that leaves 79 hours for me to prioritize (actually not really because my commute is 3 hours...so for me it's more like 64 hours).

How you prioritize those 79 hours is of great importance.  I didn't miss your point.  You didn't like what that pastor was doing.  I agree with you.  But your attitude toward pastors is what more than one poster in here reacted to.



> As to the rest, you decided what I was saying before you finished reading it.



No sir.  I simply explained to you why you were getting the recoil from a bunch of folks that you didn't seem to understand why you were getting.

I wasn't telling you what you said...I was telling you how it sounded...how it read...and I was accurate.  I know what you wrote.  As I said, it wasn't what you wrote.  It was how you said it that people reacted to.



BTW...you're not donating to the church.  You are giving the Lord what is his.  I'm sure you approach it like that.  But I'm just clarifying.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

> Preach the Bible and your congregation will know who to vote for and who not to vote for.



You got it brotha....it ain't that dificult.  People don't need to be told WHO to vote for.  They need to be shown WHAT the Word of God says they should vote in favor of.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> I've seen some pastor's get paid well and earn every bit of it.  I've seen others get paid well and run the church into the ground.



X2 on both, and I have seen many who did not get paid enough.



rjcruiser said:


> It is like anything in life, you can't set a certain salary bar for all and hold fast to it.  What is acceptable?  What isn't?



I never said we should.  I actually said a preacher should make as much as he can, and the elder's congregation should determine if it is appropriate.




rjcruiser said:


> What I do know is that our govt allows churches to be non-profit.  So, why is that a problem?  Churches should not tell their congregation how to vote, they should preach the Word of God.  It says we shouldn't murder.  It says we should work hard.  It says those that don't work shouldn't eat.


 
It does, but based on a certain criteria.  My point was that when that criteria is broken, so should the non-profit status.  It should be case by case, not universal.



rjcruiser said:


> *Preach the Bible and your congregation will know who to vote for and who not to vote for.*



Careful there.....very many congregations see Jesus as a social justice figure (feed the poor type stuff).  So, often, folks are left thinking he would certainly have been a democrat (not my opinion, I think he was apolitical).



rjcruiser said:


> And if it is still unclear, print out the bios of the people running for office and where they stand on the issues and tell people to decide for themselves.  That is not illegal.



I see no problem with that.  I think the issue is when they are being "led," and I have certainly seen that happen.  We often think it's ok because the Chruches we attend are conservative, but what about the liberal Churches doing the opposite?  That's my only thoughts there.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> But your attitude toward pastors is what more than one poster in here reacted to.



No, it was my attitude towards one pastor. And any other pastor who acted like he did.  



Huntinfool said:


> .  As I said, it wasn't what you wrote.  It was how you said it that people reacted to..



Then perhaps stick with what I wrote.  You sound like my wife: "It's not what you said it's how you said it." Unfortunatly on the internet, we don't get emotions and inferences, we only get words.




Huntinfool said:


> BTW...you're not donating to the church.  You are giving the Lord what is his.  I'm sure you approach it like that.  But I'm just clarifying.



Two ways of saying the same thing.  Thanks for the clarity, I will live a fuller, richer life now.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 6, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Careful there.....very many congregations see Jesus as a social justice figure (feed the poor type stuff).  So, often, folks are left thinking he would certainly have been a democrat (not my opinion, I think he was apolitical).
> 
> 
> 
> I see no problem with that.  I think the issue is when they are being "led," and I have certainly seen that happen.  We often think it's ok because the Chruches we attend are conservative, but what about the liberal Churches doing the opposite?  That's my only thoughts there.



The problem is if a person preaches that Jesus was a democrat, they're not preaching the Word of God.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> The problem is if a person preaches that Jesus was a democrat, they're not preaching the Word of God.



And I would also say that if they preach he was a republican they are not preaching the word of God.  He was neither.  I think a good case could be made that he operated outside of gov't.  Not to say that is our model, but I wouldn't use him as a tool to advance a political agenda.  Principles, yes, Jesus himself, no.  That's just me though......

......oh, and he was not big into violence either


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 6, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> *Preach the Bible and your congregation will know who to vote for and who not to vote for.*
> .



Right on.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

> Careful there.....very many congregations see Jesus as a social justice figure (feed the poor type stuff). So, often, folks are left thinking he would certainly have been a democrat (not my opinion, I think he was apolitical).



The end result is the same...the method is different.




In political speak...

Jesus' message on the poor can be loosly translated like this:  "Private citizens need to show compassion on the poor, love them, feed them, clothe them and take care of them."

Obama's message on the poor can be loosly translated like this:  "We need to show compassion on the poor, love them, feed them, clothe them and take care of them.  So I'm going to send a federal agent to take more of your money from you so that I can make sure that goal gets accomplished."


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Jesus' message on the poor can be loosly translated like this:  "Private citizens need to show compassion on the poor, love them, feed them, clothe them and take care of them."
> 
> Obama's message on the poor can be loosly translated like this:  "We need to show compassion on the poor, love them, feed them, clothe them and take care of them.  So I'm going to send a federal agent to take more of your money from you so that I can make sure that goal gets accomplished."



....so, your saying Obama's message is a lot like Jesus'


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

> Two ways of saying the same thing.




Not at all the same thing.  One means you are blessed and returning a portion to the one who owns it.  The other means you're a good guy and you're helping out by giving some of what is yours.  Ananias and Sapphira found out the difference REAL quick.

But keep on keepin' on.  



> Thanks for the clarity, I will live a fuller, richer life now.



If I could charge you for the benefit of my wisdom, I would.  For now, I'll just settle for knowing that your life is both richer and fuller.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

> ....so, your saying Obama's message is a lot like Jesus'



Except for that whole "I'm gonna steal your money" thing.  When the rich young ruler asked what he should to to get to the kingdom of heaven, Jesus said "give away all your posessions and follow me".

When the guy walked away sad, Jesus didn't send any IRS agents to collect the money that he told the guy he had to give.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Ananias and Sapphira found out the difference REAL quick..



That story has caused me more "logical" issues than Job.  
But.....

Ananias and Saphira lied, or concealed the truth.  That is not a good example.  To say I donated does not rule out the why's or how's.  I think you are getting bogged down in minutia.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Except for that whole "I'm gonna steal your money" thing.  When the rich young ruler asked what he should to to get to the kingdom of heaven, Jesus said "give away all your posessions and follow me".
> 
> When the guy walked away sad, Jesus didn't send any IRS agents to collect the money that he told the guy he had to give.



I forget sometimes that I have to be very clear with you.....my point was that, at a glance, the two statements could be seen as similar.  The average voter is not so intelligent, and will likely overlook the pertinent details, or, even worse, determine which details are pertinent and which are not.

So, a liberal would see the similarity in the "feed the poor" message, and determine that any means possible is a logical fulfillment of such an order.  Remember, they view gov't as the solution.  Soemtimes it's all in who is hearing what you are saying.  This thread is a great example.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

...What I didn't tell you, explicitly, is that most Christians who are also conservatives also have a "feed the poor" message...and (since you didn't figure it out) it's worded exactly like what I posted for Jesus...it's not just similar.

If the body of Christ did it's job, Obama would never have been elected and conservatives would hold all three branches of govt for the rest of history.


----------



## Bama4me (Oct 6, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> In this situation, he was not.  It was Church policy.  He worked 3 1/2 days and no more.  Then, on top of 5 weeks vacation (which he also took), he also got a month long sabatical.  Then, he got to where he was only preaching about half the time, they had a "teaching team."  So, this man made 6 figures delegating for 3 1/2 days a week.  I got no problem with that.  I have a problem with him telling me I had to give twice as much time as he was willing to give.  And I have a problem with a tax code which gave him his housing allowance tax-free.



Wasn't commenting on your situation... just the situation in general for most people.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Bama4me said:


> Wasn't commenting on your situation... just the situation in general for most people.



Ok, and you have a point.  I have friends who are preachers, and a brother who is also in the ministry.  It seems, particularly in smaller churches, that the preachers efforts are often taken for granted.  For some reason, the bigger the church, the more it trends opposite....less effort more appreciation, at least that is what I have seen.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> ...What I didn't tell you, explicitly, is that most Christians who are also conservatives also have a "feed the poor" message...and (since you didn't figure it out) it's worded exactly like what I posted for Jesus...it's not just similar.
> 
> If the body of Christ did it's job, Obama would never have been elected and conservatives would hold all three branches of govt for the rest of history.



HF, what are you talking about?  What is worded exactly like Jesus?  The Christian conservative message?  When did we start to debate about that?  I do not recall disagreeing with you about that.....

And I am glad you have figured out how Jesus voted, I personally think he would have skipped voting, but that is only my opinion......and I vote every time the doors are open, even on the little county referendums.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 6, 2011)

Randy said:


> No a business makes a profit or does not stay in business.  But I agree with you.



God's business is a spiritual business that cannot be outgiven. I make a good "profit" off my dealings with God's work and it ain't always money profit.

Once I let go of my offering or tithes then I've done what I'm called to do. If I didn't trust my church or the churchworkers then I'd go elsewhere. Once I give it, then it's on them and I don't worry about it. It's not like God needs my money, He wants my obedience and to be a cheerful giver.

If something unusual starts happening, like the preacher drives up in a new 340z convertible, or a chauffer driven limo on sunday morning,  then I might rethink some things.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Oct 6, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Funeral and Wedding fees.



Oh so you were just joking.  How cute.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 6, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> God's business is a spiritual business that cannot be outgiven. I make a good "profit" off my dealings with God's work and it ain't always money profit.
> 
> Once I let go of my offering or tithes then I've done what I'm called to do. If I didn't trust my church or the churchworkers then I'd go elsewhere. Once I give it, then it's on them and I don't worry about it. It's not like God needs my money, He wants my obedience and to be a cheerful giver.
> 
> If something unusual starts happening, like the preacher drives up in a new 340z convertible, or a chauffer driven limo on sunday morning,  then I might rethink some things.



I agree.

I got to admit that I'm pretty surprised and ashamed of myself for getting involved in a conversation concerning specific church leadership problems.
Those sorts of subjects are best discussed face to face, in a room with the door closed for privacy, and not discussed among every Tom Dick and Harry that might come along.

One of the mistakes that's often made on an internet forum.  Discussing things before the entire world that should only be discussed in private.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> One of the mistakes that's often made on an internet forum.  Discussing things before the entire world that should only be discussed in private.




???

The problem is, most often nobody wants to hear a person's thoughts when they don't agree.  You end up with a "just find another church." Folks want it their way, and that's fine, but conversation is too often stifled.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 6, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> ???
> 
> The problem is, most often nobody wants to hear a person's thoughts when they don't agree.  You end up with a "just find another church." Folks want it their way, and that's fine, but conversation is too often stifled.



The point isn't agreeing or disagreeing.  It isn't a contest.

The point is, I'm sorry that I got involved.  It has nothing to do with anything anyone else said.  It has to do with me.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 7, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> The point isn't agreeing or disagreeing.  It isn't a contest.
> 
> The point is, I'm sorry that I got involved.  It has nothing to do with anything anyone else said.  It has to do with me.





I don't think you need to be sorry...but I do know what you're saying. But sometimes some things need to be said and God never said that we don't need to defend ourselves, that's why He gave us a sword. And dueling about scripture keeps us on our toes and sharpens our sword.

I'm pretty sure Paul didn't have a side job, God provided Paul with what he needed to accomplish the mission set before him. Heck who knows Paul mighta needed a new pair of sandals or two once in a while....sheesh.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 7, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> The point isn't agreeing or disagreeing.  It isn't a contest.
> 
> The point is, I'm sorry that I got involved.  It has nothing to do with anything anyone else said.  It has to do with me.



I wasn't clear, I can see that.  I was confused as to why this thread would be considered a negative, or, as a non-acceptable conversation to participate in from your perspective.

As far as my thoughts on folks saying "find another Church," that was in reference to your closed doors comments.  It just doesn't work that way in my experience.  When I have tried to have a meeting with somebody, or discuss contrary opinion, they will tell me to "get on board with the vision God gave us," or find another Church.  There is no discussion, and me, and all my curiosity about things, is left Church hopping or sitting at home.

The concept of the body is then lost.


----------

