14th May, 2008

Should Church Musicians Get Paid?

I am very familiar with two different churches in my area, both very similar in size.  One of these churches pays their musicians $350 for a Sunday morning, the other pays $0.  What is behind such a difference?

I am not going to claim to know.  What I do know is that the church that pays $0 views the musicians as volunteers, and it draws all of them out of it’s own church body.  The church that pays $350 views the musicians as professionals, and draws some of them from it’s own body, and others who are not a part of the church.

I believe the answer to the title of this post is “no.”  Church musicians do not have to be paid.  I don’t think there is anything wrong with a church paying its musicians - it is a sizable time commitment.  However, it is good to volunteer and dedicate one’s time to commitments such as church music as well.

So then, what we need not look at the question of whether church musicians should be paid or not, but rather if it is wise to do so with the church’s money.  More on this later.  Your thoughts?

 

Posted by: Josh Pratt
Categories:
Church
Music

Responses

What if in the church where the musicians don’t get paid, the piano player actually does get paid?

I think traditionally the pianist has gotten payment, but that probably stems from the era when there was only a pianist or an organist.

This is a very interesting topic, but I probably find my self, as a church musician, not wanting to get paid. Getting paid my take some of the service aspect out of it, in fact would by virtue of getting paid.

It is wonderful to know we’ll be rewarded in heaven!

By: philthecarl on May 16th, 2008
at 10:12 am

Great question, Josh! Yes, this is the Carolyn you know, from NC…. :-) I agree with you, in that if people have a gift and it is a way of offering that gift to God, let it be such an offering. How beautiful! And, if it is part of a formal program and the church can afford it and the musician is supporting the liturgical worship and doctrine, then, maybe it is fine to pay them too. It is, indeed, an incredible amount of work and investment on behalf of the musician to do this well - not to perform, but to enhance worship of/for the assembly. I can tell you that I was very surprised at the $350 payment. A typical supply Pastor preparing and delivering a sermon down here as an Ordained Supply Pastor may get $125 - $150 for a Sunday when they are leading worship. And, sermon preparation takes a great deal of time to do it well. (payment varies some, of course, based on church abilities). I like what you said — what matters is what is wise for the Church to do with the funds it has…what would best serve God, mission, community. Peace!

By: Carolyn on July 10th, 2008
at 5:19 pm

To be paid for a service provided does not mean that the deed is no longer a service. If I am a police officer I may serve my community and I would be paid for it. I recently heard a Jewish Rabi speaking about work, retirement and serving the community. He said that the reason so many Jews are prosperous is because the tithe, never retire or “stop serving” and always gave charity to those in need. Interesting concept. What about Luke 10:7? How is it ok for other servants to be paid such as pastors, ministers etc; but it is ofter frowned upon when music ministers require salary? Did the Levitt’s receive pay for their service or any kind of support for means of living?

By: Joey on August 11th, 2008
at 11:22 pm

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories