Hiring a Preacher
by Floyd Chapellear
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 1, March 31, 1990
When the Lord sent the seventy, He provided for their financial care. Those who were taught the word were to provide for the needs of those who did the teaching. Similarly, the Lord showed that there should be a "communication" (koinoneo - sharing, a distribution) between those who are taught and those who teach (Galatians 6:6). Paul argued that it is not for the sake of the ox that he said "the labourer is worthy of his hire" (see: I Corinthians 9:9ff), but for our sake. Thus, the preacher of the word is worthy of the hire given him.
That he is not to be a hireling is self-evident for in the New Testament, a hireling is regarded as self-centered, not sheep-centered. He is such as whose god is his belly (Romans 16:18) and is, therefore, altogether reprehensible in God’s sight. However, the term "hireling" is not always a reprobation with God. In fact, he may be a victim of false workers (see: Malachi 3:5) but who is, himself, worthy before God. Thus, a preacher may be "hired" and receives "hire" (see: Matthew 20:1-9) for doing a noble and needed work. This person has been called to a task and is worthy of being "hired" for doing it.
Where preachers are concerned, it must be understood that the one doing the "calling" is God. This is not to say that preachers have a miraculous "calling" to preach, but they should feel under obligation to serve God who called us to this work. Therefore, the preacher’s only master is Jesus Christ, the God of Heaven. We are not in the business of pleasing others lest we be regarded as unfit to serve Him (Galatians 1:10). Even so, we have a relationship and an obligation to those who provide the wages so that we can engage in the work we place our hands on. I want to say a few things about that relationship and the matter of "hiring" a preacher.
Hiring a Preacher
When one argues that a preacher cannot be "hired," one seems to engage in semantics. A church has the right to support a preacher and assign him to a designated venue. The church at Antioch, for instance, separated Paul and Barnabas and sent them to a Holy Spirit ordained work (see: Acts 13:1-3). In effect, they "hired" these two to engage the devil in a specific arena. Had these two refused to labor where they were assigned, the church would have been compelled to "hire" others to participate in that work. As Antioch had the right to "hire" men to labor in a foreign field, a church today has the same right to "hire" one to work domestically. Any preacher who wishes to refuse the assignment has the right to do so, but he does not have the power to deny the church’s right to make such an assignment.
[Editor: Sadly, Floyd made a mistake here. It was the Holy Spirit, not the church, who selected Paul and Barnabas. It was the Holy Spirit, not the church, who selected where these men would go and what work they would do. The Spirit had said, "Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them" (Acts 13:2). This passage does not prove Floyd's point. It counters it.]
In an earlier "assignment," the Jerusalem church hired Barnabas to go labor in Antioch (Acts 11:22). Again, he could have chosen to refuse the work, but he could not deny them the right to make such an assignment to one who was willing to accept the commission. In that vein, a church "hires" a preacher to work within certain parameters, and he can be expected to accept them or refuse the call. This does not make him a hireling in the classic sense of the term, but he has been "hired" with no stigma attached.
The "hiring" of a local preacher (whose parameters have been defined) is fraught with difficulty. Many factors have to be considered, which are "touchy" to say the least (age, marital status, ability, etc.). The bottom line, however, is this: Is he the man fitted to the task to be done? If he is, he should be selected and supported for the work.
The "hiring" process may be subject to human judgment. Among them is what kind of "try out" should be given. Several have told me of a practice that is taking root in some quarters, which is much to the disliking of some preachers. This is the use of an extensive questionnaire the preacher must fill out and return. Several preachers have asked me what I think of such when its justification is that the questionnaire saves the Lord’s money by getting quickly past issues which would be dealt with in a face-to-face confrontation. I have no problem with the questionnaire. However, I would send a questionnaire to the church to be filled out by the elders and all the members. Any church that would refuse to fill out the questionnaire seems to me to be carnal and insincere. After all, shouldn’t the preacher be likewise encouraged to engage in that which would save the Lord’s money? Also, it would seem to be the height of arrogance and ungodliness to require of another that which one would not want required of one’s self.
Additionally, I have reminded brethren when I was "trying out" that they, too, are trying out. On one occasion, I was asked, "Do you have any idiosyncrasies we need to know about?" The questioner was told, "No, I am the only man in the brotherhood who preaches the truth on everything. The issue is, do you have any idiosyncrasies I need to know about?" Both sides gave more explanations, and I moved to that place. To decide to work together is a mutual decision, and whatever is required of one should be required of all!
The elder of a church that sent a questionnaire told me he would have gladly received one in return, which shows that the church’s motivation was pure. This could be very helpful.
One preacher told me he threw such a questionnaire in the circular file because it asked ridiculous questions. (For example, "Where did he stand on the issues?" and similar questions. These were answers to which they should have already known, or they would not have considered him for the work.) This was a judgment call on his part, which I will not gainsay.
Another preacher complained that a church asked him to "try out" and told him what topics they wanted him to preach. I said, "I think that’s great." Such a church wants to know what a preacher is like when he preaches something other than his favorite sermons. (As an aside, I would also like to hear him at his best. Why not ask him to preach five or six sermons and assign him topics for half of the lessons?)
The Preacher Parade
One problem that could be eliminated is the "preacher parade." This is the practice of having several men try out and later choose from among them.
Preaching is not a competitive business and should not be treated as such. I believe a church should have one man try out, decide whether or not you want him, and ask a second to come only if the first man is rejected. Having several tryouts is unproductive, unwise, and often divisive. Invariably, some will want one of the men not chosen, thus creating needless strife within the church.
I will not try out at a place where I know another man is on the hook. I am not inclined to compete for the job of preaching, and I would not want another man to have to do so either. This could easily breed a competitive spirit in the two men, which is not healthy.
On the other hand, I will not try out at more than one church until I have told the first church that I will not move there. I do not believe it is conducive to anything but carnality for a man to try out at several places and then to "weigh the offers" between them before making a decision. This smacks of the wisdom that does not come from above but from below. Preachers and churches should avoid such.
Asking Him to Leave
The flip side of "hiring" a preacher is dismissing one, which is also difficult.
I believe that as long as the preacher is doing the work he was brought in to do, he should be allowed to stay. Horror stories abound, however, about preachers who were asked to leave simply because "it’s time for a change of preachers." One eldership told a man, "You are doing the best work you have ever done. However, you’ve been here eight years, and you will probably go downhill from here. Therefore, we’re asking you to find another place to preach." In my opinion, that eldership is unqualified to serve and is usurping a responsibility that isn’t theirs anyway.
Philip moved about "till" he came to Caesarea (Acts 8:40), where he settled down to live and labor. He was still there some thirty years later (cf. Acts 21:8). Although Peter may have ended up at "Babylon," where he served as an elder, he spent most of his life in Jerusalem working with the saints. It seems to me that under most circumstances, a preacher moving to a community and
making it his home is in the church's best interest. The example of John T. Lewis’s searching for a city is good for us.
Asking a preacher to move every three to five years may constitute the grossest stupidity imaginable. This is not to say that if a man is derelict in his responsibility, he should not be dismissed. Indeed, he should. But hiring a preacher should not be a capricious act to be carried out every so often. It should be handled in a businesslike manner. With that thought in mind, can you imagine a company telling their accountant (whose work was wholly satisfactory), "You’ve been here long enough, we think it is time to get a new bookkeeper." Churches are stewards of the Lord’s money; they should dispense it wisely. Changing preachers for the sake of a change is not wise.
Even some failures by a preacher should be dealt with in a manner other than dismissing him. We all teach that the preacher and his family are no different from the rest of us. We all claim to believe it. What happens when a preacher or one of his children misbehaves? Do we seek to save the soul or simply change preachers? Personnel moves are easier for elders to make than shepherding ones. Isn’t that a shame?
Paying the Preacher
I suggest you read the article on preachers' pay, which was carried out in the last issue of Sentry by Gary Calton. I heartily endorse his sentiments, including those suggesting that some young preachers may be paid too much. I do not want a circumstance encouraging young men to seek preaching as a profitable career.
When a preacher’s salary is considered, one would do well to remember that most brethren compare their net salary (less benefits) with the preacher’s gross salary (with no benefits). Additionally, one usually forgets to account for business expenses that the preacher must pay out of his salary, which a company would pay if he were in secular employment. Further, one needs to consider the "pro bono" work a preacher regularly calls upon to do. ("Pro bono publico" is Latin for "for the good of the commonwealth [public]" - hence, "free.") Like a lawyer, he is often required to volunteer for such. This includes driving great distances for weddings, funerals, and other matters that may cost him a considerable amount of out-of-pocket expense.
Too many preachers are asked to accept the lowest possible salary. Once, I was asked, "How much do you need in terms of salary?" I replied, "I don’t want to make as much as a plumber for I’d hate to think that preaching the gospel to save souls was worth as much as fixing broken toilets, but I expect (a dollar amount was given)!" To which this reply was given, "We didn’t pay the last man that much!" "That was between you and him; you asked me what I needed."
Additionally, one is sometimes asked to return to square one when moving. If the preacher already gets four weeks vacation, he will be asked to revert to one when moving to a new place. Along this line, I was once refused my paycheck on the due day because the treasurer argued, "Where I work, new employees are required to wait two weeks before getting their first check." He was immediately told that I was not a "new employee" but that I had been with the "firm" for more than ten years and was now in a new location. After suggesting that a business meeting might be called to resolve the dispute, the treasurer relented and gave me my pay.
I have no sympathy with preachers moving for a higher salary, but it is sometimes necessary. In many cases, I have known of churches complaining about the current preacher’s salary only to find they had to pay the new man up to 20% more! Why not give the preacher a 20% raise, save on moving expenses, and continue a profitable relationship? I have jokingly said that if a preacher mentions moving, the church should give him a $3,000 bonus just to stay. (In most cases, the church would save much more than that amount in moving expenses alone.)
Hiring a preacher is difficult. However, we can make it easier for all concerned if everyone acts as if they feel the other brother is better than themselves. Practice the "golden rule" of doing what we want done to us. Each counts the other as better than self and does not seek one’s own good but the good of another. Most of the problems arise when bitterness and jealousy arise. These should never be named among the elect.
