a salary-less church
In the emulation of twitter, I want to post some “140 character or less” thoughts on this topic.
its easy to talk about a salary-less church when you don’t get your salary from the church.
giving to our church has gone up as I have taken less.
In the last 1.5 months I haven’t taught at toh… and we’ve grown.
i’m pretty sure the Brethren are the authority on this, but i think what i am thinking about is a little different.
James Surowiecki – social media TED talk is very helpful on this topic. I like the term a volunteer co-operative program.
does having no paid staff mean that there are no leaders? i’ve seen the opposite.
I used to think a church would always need a paid leader. not sure anymore.
salary-less could mean community-more?
I have no idea what a salary-less church looks like… i mean didn’t Paul even get paid?
an excessive reliance on incentives (salary) demoralizes professional activity by people losing morale and activity losing morality. B.Swartz
We assume money will keep the train rolling… not necessarily. It may keep rolling, but in what direction?
less money to leaders.. less stress?
Feel free to leave some comments… here or follow me on twitter.
Tags: Barry Swartz, church, community, James Surowiecki, leadership, salary-less, TED, the open house
I often wonder is salary less mean no leadership and therefore no direction . It shouldn’t but often no responsibility leads to no direction because what is everyone’s task it nobody’s task. It also is less stressful because there is no accountability because you didn’t pay again another poor excuse. I guess is all boils down to the character and passion of the leader to lead without pay only calling from God.
Is a 100% salaried pastor “freed for ministry” or isolated from the community?
Lower salary ⇒ reduced costs ⇒ more viable ⇒ more plants?
Lower salary ⇒ reduced skepticism ⇒ increased giving ⇒ greater impact?
I think a salary-less church sounds like a wonderful idea to me!
“I have no idea what a salary-less church looks like… i mean didn’t Paul even get paid?”
The first image that comes to mind is a book club. They meet on a regular basis and discuss a topic chosen in a round table format.
In my limited experience of churches, the “small group” format seemed to me to be more in line with what it was really about. Sunday services can be interesting, but I think we learn and grow a lot more from the intimate conversation and events that happen in a group where everyone has equal voice. It’s much less a leaders meditation for the day, and more a reaction to the lives of the congregation.
Our leadership team had a brief but good chat about this last night.
The consensus is that there seems to be a need for a leader (notice i never said no leadership), and incentive could lead to more activity. However, andrea pointed out that when we paid her as an intern, she felt more stress and obligation.
my question is whether a church could be entirely volunteered and still be effective if people embrace the mission, because it is possible then freedom is possible and money is available in amazing ways.
I would like to see what a group who totally embrace the mission looks like. I agree that it should be possible and then empowering freedom would be greater motivation than any paycheck. Accountability should be higher because of the mission than the paycheck.