Should church musicians be paid??

[Pickalittle]

I would not take a dime for my role as a lead guitarist in our church. The church could easily pay me (and other musicians) as it is a big church. I just think it would diminish the joy I receive doing it for God.
My perspective and the perspective of many here is that I will be paid some day by the Lord himself for anything I do in His name.
How, what or when...I'll leave that up to Him.

[Noster]

My cousin is worship leader at a church here in South Africa. They do 4 services per sunday with a team of 65. He has to do it fulltime. He gets paidabout R25 000 monthly. That's around $3200 (just to put in in perspective, an American Deluxe tele goes for around R18 000 retail here...)

He's busy 5 days a week with preperations, rehearsals and admin, and I think he deserves every penny. The church auditors, secrataries etc get paid after all...

[HOBBSTER01]

ALL musicians should be paid.
Consider the time,effort,travel expenses and not to mention equipment costs.
I used to play at a church in which the minister of music,the pianist and organist were all paid.
The rest of us including the sound guy were strictly voluntary by choice.
The slap in the face came when the staff used church funds to buy the Pastor a Submariner Rolex for his anniversary as pastor.

[Mike Bruce]

Very interesting discussion!

It certainly depends on a number of issues, but assuming the church has some sort of music "leader" (organist, pianist, choirmaster, praise band director, whatever), that individual should be paid according to the church's ability to pay and the individual's qualifications. This could range from a small per diem (literally "per day" but meaning token amount per service worked) to a livable salary. Usually in my church this is the case, and choristers are volunteers.

Unless it's a huge wealthy church, it wouldn't be realistic to pay an band/orchestra of a few or more members, but some sort of at least symbolic recompense is a good gesture. As for me, covering string and equipment costs would be a minimum as a "volunteer", or a livable wage as a full-time employee. How would I support my family otherwise?

I grew up in the church and saw how much labour was devoted to its cause, prep time, rehearsal time (usually in the evenings), instructional time, never/rarely having a weekend off, consultation with parishioners, etc. To expect this to be unpaid work is unrealistic. There are those who can afford not to be paid for their labours, but I for one couldn't default on my mortgage or refuse to feed my kids...if you know what I mean.

(For the record, I'm an unpaid chorister, son of a clergyman/choirmaster, but pro musician outside of the church.)

Mike Bruce

[Strawfields]

Ministers get paid right?

[Darkwing]

As the recent past president of a temple, I can let you know how we handled this question. Let me first say that I do not completely support our boards choices.

First, temple members in the choir did not get paid, however, outside singers who were used to pump up the quality were. They were usually music students from the local university, but some were people who made their living, or at least supplimented it by singing in various choirs.

As to musicians; we had a keyboard player who was paid by the temple when she played at services as well as rehersals, and by members when she played at their childs bar or bat mitzvah. As she is a member, I disagree with the former but agree with the latter. When I played guitar at services getting paid was never a consideration.

In the end, the points to consider are what the institution can afford, if the musicians are members and whether the musicians earn their living from this. I don't believe there's a right answer to this question.

[refin]

Originally Posted by PraiseCaster

Cause I just want to add one thought:

Now this should only apply to a Church that is self sufficient enough, to where it wont take away from Ministry, or Outreach needs. In other words, the Church is not struggling financially.

When David was King (and all subsequent Kings), He not only fed the Worship Musicians from his own table (meaning; they enjoyed the same exact food, that David did, which, for a King would be 5 Star Dining), but they and their family was housed at the King's Palace.

So in light of that background in the scriptures, If a Church has the funds available, they should offer to compensate the musicians. Now of course, the musician could always decide to just donate his time too the Church, if he so wishes.

So, I think it shouldnt be a burden to the Church financially, but, if the Church could afford it, I think they should at the very least offer. I mean, if King David thought it was that important........

+1000---balanced .

[collinsman]

Originally Posted by HOBBSTER01

ALL musicians should be paid.
Consider the time,effort,travel expenses and not to mention equipment costs.
I used to play at a church in which the minister of music,the pianist and organist were all paid.
The rest of us including the sound guy were strictly voluntary by choice.
The slap in the face came when the staff used church funds to buy the Pastor a Submariner Rolex for his anniversary as pastor.

It must of been a Copeland' church

[mudbean]

If I may, as one standing outside looking in ...

I have a drummer friend who is hired by a local church to play for their services. He is neither a member of the church, nor even a follower of it's doctrine. He depends on his drumming for income. He is, and should be, IMHO, paid to play in church.

Now, if you're a member of the congregation and don't have a financial need for the cash, my honest opinion is that your music should be your offering to the Lord, and you need not be compensated monetarily to perform.

My $0.02, FWIW.

mud

[golfnut]

If you do it full time you should be paid. If you show up to a practice once a week and play on Sunday and hold down a full time job then you should not be paid. Ushers, members of the board and other volunteers are not paid and put in as much or more time than a musician that may show up once a week for a practice and Sundays.
This isn't a bar where they're selling beer for profit. If you want to be paid as a part time musician go work the clubs.

[golfnut]

Originally Posted by mudbean

If I may, as one standing outside looking in ...

I have a drummer friend who is hired by a local church to play for their services. He is neither a member of the church, nor even a follower of it's doctrine. He depends on his drumming for income. He is, and should be, IMHO, paid to play in church.

They must have a very hard time getting musicians and feel that is a need in their church. In that case of course he should get paid. They hired him. Personally I think its wrong Praise and worship in a church is something that needs to be offered from the heart and soul of all who participate. I'd rather receive worship from one worship leader playing an acoustic then a whole professional band that is only there for the money. Singing and playing music that you don't feel or don't even believe in is never very convincing.

[golfnut]

Originally Posted by HOBBSTER01

ALL musicians should be paid.
Consider the time,effort,travel expenses and not to mention equipment costs.
I used to play at a church in which the minister of music,the pianist and organist were all paid.
The rest of us including the sound guy were strictly voluntary by choice.
The slap in the face came when the staff used church funds to buy the Pastor a Submariner Rolex for his anniversary as pastor.

Think about the parable of the field workers. The ones that were hired at the beginning of the day were paid the same as the workers hired at the end of the day that contributed less.
If you agreed to play for nothing then that is your agreement. You shouldn't have felt "slapped in the face". Your rewards come from God not man.

[jrm27]

Wow, what a topic. A lot of great replies here.

I have been on all sides of this. I have served for years without any type of pay, as well as have been on staff as a worship leader at a few different churches.

Fundamentally, I think there is nothing wrong with being paid as a worship leader. When on staff especially. However, I've always found that if I can find rom in the budget I would like to pay as many players as possible... especially those that commmitt week in and week out. Not as a way to "retain", but a sa way to use my sparse resources to bless them for their time and effort. No one comes to play with us under the guise of getting paid gobbs of money.. in fact, everyone comes on under volunteer basis. If we can pay certian folks we will. However, if we can't, we don't.

I think there is nothing wrong with paying a worship leader or musician. When the temple was being built in the OT, there were musicians whose full time job it was to play music and praise.

[guitbusy]

Yes, no, and maybe... Good discussion I just feel there is no correct answer to the question because it depends on each situation.

[Pickalittle]

Problem is, for every guitarist who should be paid, there's another in the pews just salivating to take his place for free, especially in a larger church, where it's more like doing concert work and everything is very well planned in advance and where performer/session guitar-skills are the norm.

(Apologies to my 10th grade English teacher for my run-on sentence!)

[franchelB]

Personally speaking, I don't get paid as a church musician other than "thank you" and an appreciation dinner at the end of the year. On the other hand, I don't feel I have to give "love offering" at service. My "time" and "talent" are what I offer to "tithe".

[ejb222]

Personally I feel as though members of the worship team should not be paid. God freely gave us a gift that was intended to lead other to Christ and unite many in worship for his honor. I think for people who aren't Christians, it's easier to see God's Glory in people who freely give because of what they have received. Where it would be easy to saw that someone only performs worship because of compensation. It may not be true, but it's an unclear message. I would also say that being paid could also invite a sense of pride and entitlement that should not be synonimous with worship for God.

But to those who devote a life to Godly service. God has seen fit to provide for them through offerings, etc. If worship is not your vocation and means of providing for yourself, how can we demand that of God when he's already providing in other ways? And isn't worship about God not about what we can earn from it. Is that similar to doing good deeds because it makes us feel good and not for God?

[ejb222]

Maybe I could put it this way...
I don't think the worship team should expect to be paid. For wages come out of obligation for deeds done...after all we are worshiping God not roofing the sanctuary.
But...the congregation should also hopefully have it on their heart to support their place of worship. And through Jesus Christ our Lord, the worship team will be delighted in what they've recieved through God and the congragation will be moved to give graciously in support of their brothers and sisters.

[telered]

Good Topic - Fascinating Viewpoints!

I've played in P&W bands for 20+ years and have never been paid or even offered a stipend.
Over the years, the Churches we've been members of were smallish(100-200 people) so, they most likely couldn't afford to pay musicians even a small token.
However, I believe it's easy for a church to take for granted its musicians. We're always there - and don't complain.
The local church does however tend to take advantage on special occasions -as mentioned in an above post.

I would love someday to just be offered "gas money"....probably turn it down - but its the thought that counts.
Todays modern churches continue to be out of touch with their congregants.

[Mr_Catch_22]

Ok, first, we'll assume that the musician is good enough to warrant being paid (as in, they could hold their own in a decent gigging-for-money-not-only-free-drinks).

(1) What is their position? Are they a full-time member, or a sub? Are they the band leader, or no?

(2) What is the repetoir of songs? Are we talking someone who has to spend 2 hours or more a day practicing just to keep up, or someone who has to learn, say, 50 songs, of which 45 are just 3 or 4 chords?

(3) What do they have to spend on gear SOLELY for the "Church gig?" If you wanna use an AC-30/6 when an Epiphone 2x12 Valve Jr would be a tonal overkill, that's on you. Most musicians would have their own gear, and the only real factor here is transportation, In my opinion. Wear-and-tear is negligable, if you're careful. I'd say at least hook 'em up with strings, picks, batteries, etc.

(4) What is the religion? Bear in mind that some faiths consider musicians to be, well, teachers. Look at Sitarists...you've practically gotta have three PhDs to be allowed to lead a musical worship service! Some church organ players are the same, in that it's essentially their full-time job. That kinda falls in with 'position,' though.

(5) TAXES! Say you've got a really good guitarist who doesn't gig-out anymore. He wants to play for his church, though. If you paid him, say, $15.00 a week, he could claim on his taxes to be a working musician, and would be able to write-off gear purchases for his God-gig. Also, if he was listed as a 'contractor' and not an employee, he could possibly write off mileage to and from his place of worship. The same applies for #3, but in a different way, as that kind of assumes that we're dealing with a working musician.

(6) Also, note that not all payment is cash-related. Say you're a member of the band, and your gear gets stolen out of your car. I'm willing to bet that a lot of churches would take up a collection to re-equip you, if your insurance doesn't cover it. If your basement floods, I'm willing to bet that someone in the congregation would be willing to repair the damage for you for the cost of materials. One would think that this would apply to all members of the church 'family,' but let's face it...people are more likely to do more when they see you standing up there every week assisting them in worshiping through song.

I seem to recall my church back home having a similar question brought up. I don't know what the results were, but it was a HUGE church...something like 5,000 people every Sunday, if I recall. The musicians were supposed to start getting paid, as they also played a lot at the attached K-12 private school, and some were assistant teachers and whatnot.

On another note, not to sound harsh, but I've witnessed a lot of worship music, and most of it requires very little in the way of 'chops.' That's not putting it down, as many of the songs are down-right beautiful. The logic behind my statement is really in the form of a question...should a guitarist (or any musician for that matter) be paid to play something akin to "Breakfast at Tiffany's" or the like, when you can find MANY talented members of the congregation with the skill to pull off said tune who are willing to do it for free? Now, if we're talking revamping modern worship music into something similar to what you'd find on a Stevie Ray Vaughn album, that's a whole nother issue.

[sax4blues]

Just list everyone that serves in the church with their time & expenses spent on church specific work and decide who gets paid an who doesn't. The general discussion for a church would not be limited to musicians.

We have members that are contractors in various trades. A lot of the time they donate their skills and use their tools without compensation on small handyman/fix it jobs. But when we need a roof or major work done they will be compensated fairly.

So if your service is of the handywork form (rehearsal once a week for a couple hours) then just serve like the people setting up flowers/counting the offering/reading the scripture/making the powerpoint slides. If you are the music director running band/choir/jr. choir/children's musical/... and this takes you 10 hours a week, talk with your church about how other people that put in an equivalent amount of time are compensated.

[CaptainJangle]

it wouldnt feel right to me if i were paid, i get more happiness out of bringing an edgy worship instead of boring hymns. besides there is at least 7 members in my churches praise band lol NOT including vocalists!(4 vocalists...)

[pshuffield]

I think there are a number of factors that determine if the band gets paid:
1 - Size of the church
2 - Full-time/part-time ministry staff
3 - Overall church budget
4 - Number of services/time commitment

I play for a Southern Baptist Church in a small town (10,000). We have a full-time staff of 3 and 3 parti-timers. We just completed a major renovation of facilities and built a new auditorium a couple of years back - still paying it off.

I am a member of the church where I play. I do not get paid. We have 8 people playing instruments (1 piano, 2 keyboards, 2 acoustic guitars, electric guitar, drums, horn player). Our acoustic players are the associate pastor and the youth pastor. They get paid, the rest do not. Our media director gets paid, but he works 25 hours per week outside of the 3 weekly services.

The rest of the band invests about 1.5 hours outside of worship service (1 per week) for a total commitment of about 4 hours. I don't mind donating that time to the church each week. If we were playing at multiple services or had a major time commitment, I might feel differently.

I have friends who make $50 per service but they are playing in excess of 7 service a week. That takes its toll on their equipment and cuts into their lives.

My opinion is that all musicians deserve some level of recognition for their services whether playing at church or a club or just for friends. That recognition may come in the form of free meals, free alcohol, future gigs, tips, small tokens of appreciation, actual cash, or sometimes just a handshake and a very sincere "Thank you for what you do." All that said, it really depends on what you want to get out of it. If you want to be paid to play, then go where you can get paid. If your OK with just a sincere thanks, then that's cool too.

Shuff

[bubba_b]

I agree that this can be expanded to a much broader question of "Who get's paid in our church and why?" EVERY church that takes an offering pays their pastor. This is the norm and always has been. It comes from ages of traditional churches where in the beginning, the pastor was the only one leading in everything. He taught and he led the people in singing. Today, that's rarely ever the case, especially in any church over 100 people.

Think of it this way: what are the elements of your service that you could not do without? For 99% of churches, it's teaching and music. All of the churches I've ever attended would not think of eliminating worship from their service ever. Depending on your church, those two elements take a different priority level; some emphasize teaching, others the worship. If those elements are equally important to your church, they need to be treated as equally valuable. Pay one and not the other, you're being hypocritical, or you're proving with your checkbook what really is important to you and what isn't. The last church I worked for has a paid worship leader and a volunteer base of 20-30 musicians and singers, none of which are paid. They used to be, but that stopped when budget problems arose. IMHO, that was the wrong area to make cuts. Any area that has to do with execution of your weekend services should be the last area to make cuts in because that's where the church gets it's funding. If that goes down, the entire church will go down.

I guess what I'm saying is, if music is such a high priority element of your service (which it always is), then treat it as such. If money is tight, do everything you can to make cuts where it won't hurt your service and cause attendance or giving to decrease even more, causing more financial problems. Look it it like this: if you have to make budget cuts at home to get by, you don't sell your car and eliminate your way of getting to work before you cancel your cable or stop eating out. You'd be shooting yourself in the foot. I've been to many churches and the ones that honor their musicians fairly and appropriately, also have a higher level of expectation from them and it shows - in the music and in the congregation's response. The better the music, the easier it is to engage, and that doesn't come from a team of low-to-no commitment players. I've seen it week in and week out and the proof is in the people's response.

[bubba_b]

...Also, I absolutely do not think an attitude of "why pay this guy when this other guy will do it for free?" is healthy or helpful in any way. It's devaluing the paid musician to saying "you're time and abilities aren't worth paying for". If that's the route you want to go, then all I can say is, you get what you pay for. Volunteers are great, but don't expect professional level performance or commitment from them. You'll be disappointed. Oh, and don't be surprised if the paid musician doesn't attend your church after you passed him over for a "free" guy based solely on that point. That sends a big message.

[hazelcon01]

We had this issue at our church. The way we answered it was, wether or not the paid proffesional would attend our church were he not getting paid.

We are a huge church and the talent pool that we draw from is very strong. When there are four guys that play as well or better than the pro, it doesn't make since to hire him/her.

We are all called to serve the Church. God has gifted some of us with the ability to lead in worship and it is important for us to use the gifts/talents to serve. By hiring a pro, you are depriving a member of an opportunity to serve(assuming there are gifted people to draw from).

[robbysturgis]

I say no, but, why not hire the Rolling Stones and have them play Sympathy. Charge admission, and call it a service.

Rules to live by in Religion:

1. Folks shouldn't be paid to share their religious experience
2. If folks ask to be paid, refer them to rule number one

[JeffsJeep04]

Wow...interesting discussion!

I get incredibly filled up playing. Each week for me is even better then the previous lately. My job is very draining spiritually, even though it is a great christ based company. Certain individuals are just very taxing. Going wednesday nights to practice and sunday to play just make me feel so renewed. The fellowship among the band is amazing. If they offered me compensation, I'd laugh at them. I'd tell them to put it in a fund and use it for more P&W related equipment.

I've even put my money where my mouth is in the past and earmarked tithes for worship band related things. This was in a good sized church, over 1200 regular attenders every week. The current church I go to is much smaller, maybe 200. The worship is incredibly intimate and alive though. Getting to get together with fellow musicians and worship God is payment enough.

IMHO, worship leaders should get some compensation. I cant imagine having to tell a fresh guitarist that he just wasn't ready on top of having to organize a set and deal with 5+ musicians (who tend to show up late with out of tune instruments and a full bladder) :D

edit: I also forgot to mention...it is MUCH harder for my wife to say no to new equipment if it's for worship that sunday ;)

[TxTeleMan]

I don't mind not getting paid to play in church at this point. There have been inequalities though. One church, with enough money, had a paid organist/choir director/music leader, a choir, and a folk mass. I and the other guitar players and choir members were volunteers. However, they chose to bring in some paid singers to make the choir sound better. On one hand, these were professional singers who deserved to be paid for their service. On the other hand, it was kind of a slap in the face to we volunteers.

At another church, we had numerous very talented musicians, all volunteers, playing contemporary music, enough for two or three full bands. Of course the worship pastor was a full-time paid position. The only guy that got paid was the sound man. They paid $50 a Sunday to to sound man. I didn't appreciate the wisdom of that decision. The sound guys were volunteers, too, and their skill level as sound men was barely adequate, and in some cases not adequate. But the music pastor felt like the sound man was vital, so to ensure that we had one, they paid for one. But what they got were kids who had more desire than skill.

This of course begs the question about the sound man being vital. Sure, you need a sound man for a rock band in a church of 300 people. But without a band, all he does is make sure the pastor's mic doesn't feed back or sound like a telephone, and the settings don't change much week to week.

So we have a grand or two worth of guitars and amps on stage, practice one night a week, spend time at home rehearsing with mp3 or CD songs, and then play on Sunday morning. And the sound man gets paid. I don't get it.

Now, I play at another church, volunteer. The worship pastor/church secretary gets paid. I have no issue with that at all.

[bubba_b]

In response to the previous post by TxTeleman; you have an issue here for sure, but I whole-heartedly believe you're looking at this from the wrong direction. I've been a musician (both professional and volunteer) for over 20 years and I'm also a professional soundman, the latter being my actual profession for 16+ years. I was on staff as the audio/visual director and as a tech for six years at a megachurch. What I did there is absolutely justifiable as a well paid position and I'll tell you why.

I've been well trained at what I do, have years of experience and I'm very good at it (not tooting my own horn, but I don't have a problem getting repeat work). On top of that, the need for AV techs there is immense. There are 4 different venues, 3 of which have complex sound systems that run simultaneously every weekend. What I see in your scenario is not that you shouldn't pay the soundman because he's not THAT necessary, but you shouldn't pay ANYONE to do ANYTHING poorly.

You said:
"This of course begs the question about the sound man being vital. Sure, you need a sound man for a rock band in a church of 300 people. But without a band, all he does is make sure the pastor's mic doesn't feed back or sound like a telephone, and the settings don't change much week to week."

This statement to me is rather insulting. It means that all the years and money I've spent on education and work have been for nothing because it's not very important and anyone can do it. Even the things you said are extremely difficult if you're not a soundman, but you don't seem to think so. Personally, I strive for excellence in my work and life because it's what Christ calls me to do (and I want to for Him), not just "get by" and make sure it doesn't sound horrible. Do your best, not your least acceptable. "Hey, the pastor's mic barely fed back much this week and I could understand most of what he said! We're doing great!". Bologna. Mediocrity in Christianity is never a good thing and is one of the biggest deterrents to non-believers coming or returning to church these days. I can't stand the attitude of, "it's ok if we're not good, cuz it's for God". Exactly! It's for God, so you should be putting EVEN MORE into it because there's no one else worth giving your all for!

My education and experience combined in my field is currently equivalent to nearly a master's degree. Granted, not every church has the same level of need technically, but if there is a sound system at all, you need to have someone who knows what they're doing and that requires education and experience. Desire is not enough. Just ask the worship pastor when he's doing auditions for the band. Someone who really wants to play but doesn't know how will surely not be in the band. The same should go for the soundman. The difference is, sound is much MUCH more complex than I think you realize and the more you learn about it, the more you realize how much you don't know. I still learn something new nearly every day about sound; I can't say the same about my guitar. It's not a chump job and should not be treated as such.

I look at it this way: the church is there to spread the Gospel and bring people into closer relationship with God and each other. If the people can't hear the message effectively, then what good is it? The best news in the world is useless if I can't hear it. And if I can't hear it well, the badness of the sound becomes distracting and my retention of the message is lost or at least greatly reduced. Having someone competent at the helm is going to grow your church in ways you never expected. I guarantee it. If you have a volunteer who is that capable AND willing to devote EVERY weekend to being there, then do it. However, that's not the case in 90% of churches and the need to pay someone (number one for dependability and consistency, let alone talent and ability) becomes increasingly evident.

Bottom line, I know what it takes to be a good musician and a good tech and I can honestly say, musicians don't hold a candle to a good soundman, especially if he's also a good musician. There's no comparison. Either way, you need to expect the same level of excellence from every member of the team and pay them accordingly.

[giantslayer]

+1 on what bubba_b said. Doing sound well is more difficult than it sounds. A good sound person needs to:
1) Know how to run the board
2) Have a good ear
3) Understand how to properly use EQs
4) Be able to make the leaders and congregation happy with the mix and volume level.
5) Understand how the system is set up and be able to adjust things as needed.
6) Understand the room acoustics and speaker placements and be able to compensate for mixing from usually a really crappy location (in the back of the room somewhere).
7) Be able to VERY QUICKLY trouble shoot problems.
8) Be able to juggle multiple tasks simultaneously, such as mixing, EQ'ing, adjusting monitors, and keeping eyes on the front.

If you're at a church where you have exactly the same team, same setup, same soundman, only once a week, it makes the job a lot easier, especially if you had a pro set it up and everyone has been disciplined enough to not mess with it (fat chance there). At my church, the musicians and vocals rotate, we have stuff going on during the week, and we have several volunteer sound people. That means I have to adjust plenty of stuff every time I get up there.


I don't see anything wrong with paying the sound man IF he's professional quality. If you have volunteers from the congregation, you often end up getting what you pay for. If it's some kid from the congregation who doesn't know what he's doing, he shouldn't be paid for it. Naturally, the size of the church has to be a factor as well. Some churches are small enough that it's not worth it.

Something else worth noting is that good musicians and singers are a dime a dozen. Good sound people are not so plentiful. I suspect that one reason for that is you can't practice sound in your bedroom. You can only gain live sound experience by doing it, and only one person can be doing it at a time. Yes, you can read about it at home, but can't pop in a CD and mix along with it. (Although it would be cool if there was something like that.)

For the record, I'm an unpaid volunteer soundman and musician. I wouldn't accept pay if it were offered. At this point, the quality of my work is pretty close to a low-level pro. This is based on hearing mixes of, observing trouble-shooting abilities of, and seeing board setups/EQs of professionals we've hired to run sound for conferences.

[Billy G. McCoy]

Hey folks...

I had already replied and hit the submit button...then got booted off the internet due to the storm surge here in North Texas.

Basically it went like this;

Most all, if not all volunteers at the church have "regular day jobs"...this allows them to play in church for free and live within their means. Thus giving of their time and talent should looked upon as an offering.

For a Skilled/Pro musician....playing for free is NOT an option.
They play for a living...most of the time, they give a monitary sum in tithes and offerings just like Joe Blow (with regular day job) does.

A skilled laborer is worthy of his hire....says it in the Bible.
Therefore, there should be no question that a skilled picker should be compensated monitarily.

If you are NOT a skilled player....then getting paid at all should be out of the question.

Consider this:
The plumber who gets the call to unstop the toilets at the church gets paid for his skill/labor.
The HVAC guy who is called to repair the airconditioner that is on the fritz gets paid for his services.
The Electrician who is contracted to repair the broken Lighted sign by the highway expects to get paid for his services and nobody thinks twice about it.

Why then does the skilled/Pro musician get a bad rap for wanting to or expecting to get paid for his skill/talent/services?

I would wager that those of us with "regular day jobs" who expect to get paid every week for our skills/talents/services would quit if our boss came to us and expected us to work for free and/or to give our paychecks back to the company.

My assumption is: we have been programmed to believe that the musician's talent is GOD given and should be given back in the form of playing for free.
While the talent is admittantly GOD given.......giving of your time/talent/skill is considered an "offering".....and only the person giving the offering can decide what and how much he or she is going to give.

You shouldn't be told by anybody WHAT or HOW much of your talent/skills/offerings to give...that should be between you and GOD.

This is definitely an interesting subject and one that I have been engaged
with over the years.

And Yes, I am a professional musician who spanks a TELE!!!

God Bless,
b

[sax4blues]

Originally Posted by Billy G. McCoy

Hey folks...Most all, if not all volunteers at the church have "regular day jobs"...this allows them to play in church for free and live within their means. Thus giving of their time and talent should looked upon as an offering.

For a Skilled/Pro musician....playing for free is NOT an option.
They play for a living...most of the time, they give a monitary sum in tithes and offerings just like Joe Blow (with regular day job) does.

A skilled laborer is worthy of his hire....says it in the Bible.
Therefore, there should be no question that a skilled picker should be compensated monitarily.

Consider this:
The plumber who gets the call to unstop the toilets at the church gets paid for his skill/labor.
The HVAC guy who is called to repair the airconditioner that is on the fritz gets paid for his services.
The Electrician who is contracted to repair the broken Lighted sign by the highway expects to get paid for his services and nobody thinks twice about it.

Why then does the skilled/Pro musician get a bad rap for wanting to or expecting to get paid for his skill/talent/services?

You shouldn't be told by anybody WHAT or HOW much of your talent/skills/offerings to give...that should be between you and GOD.

This is definitely an interesting subject and one that I have been engaged
with over the years.

And Yes, I am a professional musician who spanks a TELE!!!

God Bless,
b

So the professional florist should be paid if he arranges the flowers Saturday afternoon. And the CPA should be paid if she leads the finance committee. The professional actor (we have one in our congregation) should be paid if he is in a drama skit. Would the restaurant host/hostess be paid when they usher? How much should we pay the parents that own a restaurant and plan/buy/cook all the food on the three day youth ski trip? Believe me, their food is pro.

What if the guitar player was professional (ours was), but has been a industrial salesman for 20 years? Not pro / no pay? Even though he can play the doors off just about anyone I know inside/outside church?

Maybe the church would be better off if the Pro picked up another paying gig each week, increased his offering, and sat in the pew Sunday morning... or even served as an usher, for free of course, unless he's professional usher.

[JeffsJeep04]

Originally Posted by Billy G. McCoy

Consider this:
The plumber who gets the call to unstop the toilets at the church gets paid for his skill/labor.
The HVAC guy who is called to repair the airconditioner that is on the fritz gets paid for his services.
The Electrician who is contracted to repair the broken Lighted sign by the highway expects to get paid for his services and nobody thinks twice about it.

I've seen the exact opposite in ever church I've been in. We all give of our talents as we are able. I've played payed gigs, but I'd hardly call myself a professional. I'd never accept money to play at church.

[Billy G. McCoy]

Hey Jeff,

If you want to give of your time...that is your business....
At one point in time...I had a day job..so pay was not an issue for me playing guitar in church...

I have been making my living playing guitar for a long time now...I get compensated and judged for it at the same time.

SAX ....you just missed the point altogether.
If the florist, the actor or whoever else was spending several hours EVERY week to do a their job at the church, then compensation should NOT be out of the question.
IT is up to them to ask or do it for free...it is their choice and their choice only.

I can't provide for my family playing for free on a regular basis.
This doesn't mean I don't do some things for free here and there and give back to the church or community. I DO....but I don't do it every week...couldn't pay my bills if I did that.

What I'm trying to say is; musicians get a bad rap for some reason.
we are not considered an EQUAL with other skills/talents/services.

Ever wonder why the really good musicians get out of church altogether?
A lot of them do....I have contemplated this several times throughout my musical career. I just get judged and treated like crap for being a musician.
Especially in the church world.

Secular gigs pay a lot more.....but there are a few of us that want to stay grounded and in church because we were raised that way!

IF YOU want to work for free....go ahead. I don't want to.....
I don't want to be told by you how much of my talent/skills/services I should
give back to GOD/Church.....that is my choice!

you may not agree with me...and I may not agree with you....
Doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion. Some folks may not be educated enough on the subject to reply.

Read your bible....especially ROMANS....you may have a different take on your last posts.

B

[sax4blues]

Originally Posted by Billy G. McCoy

Hey Jeff,

If you want to give of your time...that is your business....
At one point in time...I had a day job..so pay was not an issue for me playing guitar in church...

I have been making my living playing guitar for a long time now...I get compensated and judged for it at the same time.

I can't provide for my family playing for free on a regular basis.
This doesn't mean I don't do some things for free here and there and give back to the church or community. I DO....but I don't do it every week...couldn't pay my bills if I did that.

Ever wonder why the really good musicians get out of church altogether?

Secular gigs pay a lot more.....but there are a few of us that want to stay grounded and in church because we were raised that way!

I'm not sure I understand....

If I am a professional musician - I can only be involved in church as a musician, and I must be paid? And if I'm not treated as a professional musician then I get out of church altogether?

I didn't know church was a gig to be factored into my financial life. It starts with God saving me and then me responding/giving in thankfulness. There are certainly times that I do not give my time to my church because I am working at my profession. I do know people that have day jobs that have to work Sunday morning. So they go to church Sunday night, or Saturday, or any other time. I would assume a professional musician who has a paying gig on Sunday morning would also be able to find a church with worship times that fit his work schedule so he would be able to support his family.

I am definitely starting from a limited/biased point of view. My large church is basically all volunteers except for 2 full time pastors, secretary, finance manager, and janitor. As I've alluded we have many highly skilled/educated people in many positions and none are paid. As for the band, as best I can tell, no one has ever asked to be paid one dime, ever. In fact the band members have been some of the biggest financial contributors to the equipment.

[JeffsJeep04]

Originally Posted by sax4blues

I'm not sure I understand....

If I am a professional musician - I can only be involved in church as a musician, and I must be paid? And if I'm not treated as a professional musician then I get out of church altogether?

I didn't know church was a gig to be factored into my financial life. It starts with God saving me and then me responding/giving in thankfulness. There are certainly times that I do not give my time to my church because I am working at my profession. I do know people that have day jobs that have to work Sunday morning. So they go to church Sunday night, or Saturday, or any other time. I would assume a professional musician who has a paying gig on Sunday morning would also be able to find a church with worship times that fit his work schedule so he would be able to support his family.

I am definitely starting from a limited/biased point of view. My large church is basically all volunteers except for 2 full time pastors, secretary, finance manager, and janitor. As I've alluded we have many highly skilled/educated people in many positions and none are paid. As for the band, as best I can tell, no one has ever asked to be paid one dime, ever. In fact the band members have been some of the biggest financial contributors to the equipment.

Agreed. I read that reply as "if you are good enough, you should be paid, if not, then you can play for free". Sounds a bit elitist to me. I give as I'm able, if I wasn't able to afford to play sunday morning, then I wouldn't.

[Billy G. McCoy]

Do you guys play in church?

Do you have day jobs or are you professional musicians?

Just wondering how you would react if your boss on your day job
told you to work for free OR give your paycheck back to the company.

Whether it's church or not....you can't tell anybody else how to give
of his or her talents/skills or services.

There are several churches around that DO pay their musicians because they
want a high skill level and professionalism and consistancy that monitary means can provide.

I would also guess, that those Churches who do pay their musicians have a way better band than those churches who have volunteers....I would challenge you to find a better band than that of LAKEWOOD...where the lowest paid musician probably makes more than both of you guys (JeffsJeep and Sax4blues) combined.

Most if not all of the christian music/praise and worship tunes you guys listen too are from artists who get paid for what they do...These touring/recording musicians also do concerts in churches where they get paid....
Tell me what the difference is?

With your logic....the pastor shouldn't get paid either...he should get a regular day job and preach for free.

I challenge you to read your Bible and educate yourselves...which you obviously have not done yet.
You will find several passages where pay for services is Biblical.

[JeffsJeep04]

Originally Posted by Billy G. McCoy

Do you guys play in church?

Do you have day jobs or are you professional musicians?

Just wondering how you would react if your boss on your day job
told you to work for free OR give your paycheck back to the company.

Whether it's church or not....you can't tell anybody else how to give
of his or her talents/skills or services.

There are several churches around that DO pay their musicians because they
want a high skill level and professionalism and consistancy that monitary means can provide.

I would also guess, that those Churches who do pay their musicians have a way better band than those churches who have volunteers....I would challenge you to find a better band than that of LAKEWOOD...where the lowest paid musician probably makes more than both of you guys (JeffsJeep and Sax4blues) combined.

Most if not all of the christian music/praise and worship tunes you guys listen too are from artists who get paid for what they do...These touring/recording musicians also do concerts in churches where they get paid....
Tell me what the difference is?

With your logic....the pastor shouldn't get paid either...he should get a regular day job and preach for free.

I challenge you to read your Bible and educate yourselves...which you obviously have not done yet.
You will find several passages where pay for services is Biblical.

"Wow" is all I have to say about that. We've obviously struck a nerve. I don't make much money at my day job, as you've alluded to. Your statement about me not reading the bible is a little underhanded though, don't you think?

Look at all of Romans 12 since you seem to be telling us we haven't read it.

I've played in some quite good worship bands, but that's not our goal. We don't intend to sell CD's to further ourselves, we look to lead worship to further the praise of God. If someone is requiring you to play, maybe you need to find another church. If my boss asked me to come in saturday then I'd expect to be paid. If my pastor asked me to do the same thing I do for my day job for the church, I couldn't imagine asking him to pay my hourly salary. If playing at church is making you unable to support your family, there are other issues involved here, personally it seems to me that priorities are skewed.

[sax4blues]

Originally Posted by Billy G. McCoy

Do you guys play in church?

Do you have day jobs or are you professional musicians?

Just wondering how you would react if your boss on your day job
told you to work for free OR give your paycheck back to the company.

I guess I did not read the part that church music is the full time job and primary source of income. I agree, if my main income is from the church then of course I will be paid. I have a good friend who is worship/music leader in the church world and he is paid, that’s his full time profession, working in the church. I would never ask someone to sacrifice their financial stability to serve.

Originally Posted by Billy G. McCoy

Whether it's church or not....you can't tell anybody else how to give of his or her talents/skills or services. There are several churches around that DO pay their musicians

I’ll have to review my posts, off hand I can’t recall one statement I made that set any rule for how people should give, or if musicians should/should not be paid. I do not believe there is a rule that musicians should be paid. I think it’s fine if they are. I do wonder about statements like:

Originally Posted by Billy G. McCoy

Ever wonder why the really good musicians get out of church altogether? A lot of them do....I have contemplated this several times

A really good musician is incapbable of just being a member of a congregation and serving like anyone else?

Originally Posted by Billy G. McCoy

With your logic....the pastor shouldn't get paid either...he should get a regular day job and preach for free.

Again, not sure which part of my logic described a person not being paid when their primary full time work is for the church. But… Our church did start an outreach mission and called a part time pastor who works 20-30 hours a week at a “day job” not in ministry, and gets partial salary from the church.

If a church decides to pay people to play music, manage IT systems, oversee daycare, repair facilities, clean windows, cook food for the homeless,..... I think that is all great, I really do. And if I've dedicated my life to serving ministry at the exclusion of other income of course I must provide for my family financially. I want you to be paid.

But if I'm just some axe slinger looking to pick up a gig anywhere that pays, then just go find that gig and leave the non paying gigs alone.