I’m a little surprised by how this poll turned out and I’m eager to hear your explanations!
Do you feel that a church’s worship team should get PAID for singing each week?
Absolutely NOT! It’s their service to the Lord – 53.6% (150 votes)
It depends on a couple of factors – 30.6% (86 votes)
Absolutely! It’s only fair – 10.1% (28 votes)
I don’t really care either way – 5.8% (16 votes)
I was really expecting the majority to say that it depends on a couple of factors. I was NOT expecting an unequivocal, hands-down “absolutely not” from you guys. What’s that all about?!
In my mind, it should depend on several things– the size of the church, whether the musicians are getting paid, whether the pastor’s taking a salary, how instrumental the music ministry is to the success and growth of the church, the type of time commitment that is required of the worship team, etc.
Every model won’t work for every church and I definitely don’t think that folks should be getting paid just because they sing on Sunday. But I also don’t think I’d ever be willing to say, in all cases, that worship singers shouldn’t be getting paid just because they should view singing as their service to the Lord.
I dunno… what do you guys think???
After you comment, make sure you head over to the sidebar to vote in the next poll, which asks “what do you think about the NUMBER of gospel music conferences and workshops?”
interesting. personally, i think a worship TEAM (excluding the main leader) should NOT get paid unless the singers are contracted in, non-members. But I think in house worship teams/choirs should simply serve as members of their church community just as a connection team or creative arts member would. IMO Director of music, Worship LEADER, etc i'm open to that going either way because the task of leading, coordinating a music ministry is great and extremely time consuming. And as we know, if its a large or semi-large church, generally leading a music ministry will be your FULL TIME job so one should get compensated. Even if its part-time, you are pretty much doing a job in addition to your full time employment. But i dont agree with paying a person to just be a figure head at your church just because they have a name in the music industry. Musicians get paid because their talents are harder to come by. There are more skilled singers than there are skilled musicians. Majority of churches i know have contracted in musicians. I rarely see home grown musicians anymore. BUT I can name many churches (mainly white) where musicians are simply serving and not getting paid.
In my opinion. It depends. If the ministy pursues someone who holds a career as a musician/singer, and it's their means to live...then certainly. Otherwise, I would disagree. This same question could be posed to just musicians, who in some areas of this world, get paid $1,000+ per week. I also believe that the amont should be based on your status/education/experience (level of expertise) in the area in which you work/serve. You must also consider the ministry/size/#of people on salary/ministry events, etc.
I agree. Every situation is different. Biblically, we are supposed to take care of the people that FULLY dedicate their services to the Lord. Now, FULLY doesn't constitute, "I want to stop working so I can just sing." There is a ministerial dedication there, that frankly some P&W singers are not doing. In the cases where the P&W leader is also the Minister of Music, which constitutes being over ever facet of music ministry in the church; I can fully understand there being some form of payment involved. Simply because it is unrealistic to do all of that, AND work full-time. Then again, that also depends on the size of the church. There are so many factors that play into this topic.
hmmmm...i'm not sure how i feel just yet. i can understand both sides though. "BUT I can name many churches (mainly white) where musicians are simply serving and not getting paid." <<<<ain't that the truth. i used to be a musician but i didn't take it seriously. i only did it because it was expected of me by my family. i just wanted to sing in the choir. i have a bunch of musician friend that go from church to church to church to church based on who pays the most money. is that wrong? i haven't figured it out yet, but PERSONALLY i just don't understand how one musician can play for 4-5 different churches every single Sunday and be effective. no hate, but to some of the ones i know it is strictly a job and that is all. anyways, the question was about praise team members. without thinking too hard about it, i would say no unless it's a situation where a huge church is having 5,6,7 services every week and a person is expected to be there for all of them, make rehearsals, travel with the Pastor, attend conferences/seminars, etc. there's no way one can hold down a 9-5 doing that. at my former church we weren't paid but our meals and accomodations were paid for when we needed to travel and attend outings with the good Reverend. BTW, EJ, it says the poll re: "conferences" is closed. am i doing something wrong?
Also, I know several professional singers who sing background with big names yet at their churches, they are not compensated for singing on the praise team or in the choir. Its true, there are a lot of factors. But i think we lose the idea of SERVING in ministry when we start handing out checks left and right. And i think it would create the CHURCH HOP mentality that plagues so many musicians. How often have we seen musicians church hop for the highest amount? Its pretty common these days. I can see the same for singers if the growing trend would be to pay singers. Big churches are already paying obscene amounts to have big name artists on their roster. You got bamas flying across country just to sing at a church one sunday a month getting paid ridiculous amounts just because they're a recording artist. But i say, if you want to get into paying background singers/choir members, then start paying deacon board members, ushers, etc.
WAIT - i just re-read my comment. i misunderstood the quote that i...quoted at the beginning of the second paragraph? i thought it meant the opposite. pardon me. guess i should focus on work and stop trying to sneak in comments on here...lol
hmmm....does this then mean we should pay those who collect the offering, or those who lead in prayer? or maybe those who meet and greet at the door! I would argue that all acts of service are as equal as the other!
great topic ej...i myself am a contracted singer...as well as 5 other singers on staff with me...we were brought in to be "section leaders" if yu will to the choir and we have a sunday where we are over the music... we lead worship,we teach songs, and we train...so imo wen you are bringing in outside help why wouldnt you compensate
@EaZy-- sorry! no, you didn't do anything wrong. i was doing too much and forgot to open it. try again now.
@EJ - no problem! like i said, i thought it was me because i keep getting distracted by folks coming to my desk asking me questions about work. the nerve!
Well, I'm going to be in the minority and that is praise leaders and worship teams should not be paid at all. Praise leaders and praise teams should realize that this is a ministry, and you are leadership and service, not because of the money trail.
@Gayle, do you feel the same way if the praise team leader is also the head of the music ministry and its his/her full time job?
I personally think that the worship team should get paid but only under certain conditions. First of all I think that they should get paid based on God's leading of the pastor. However, if it was up to me it would depend on how effective they are in their singing and their level of profesionalism. The lead singers would get paid before the background singers. I think that paying them is necessary because they are getting up in front of a lot of people every sunday to minister just like the pastor is. Those worship team members are ministers as well. However, there pay should not be equal to that of the pastor because he has the greater position. I hope this makes sense to you all.
Wooaah! hold up, a Pastor's position isn't greater! It clearly carries more responsibility and maybe that's what you were getting across. But remember a church functions like a body...without one part, another part can't function. Would there be a problem if there was no one to operate the sound equipment in a church? Most probably in the majority of churches..
First of all, the praise leader and/or ministry leaders should be doing it from their heart, not for monetary gain nor want to be "famous." This to me what ministry, especially worship teams should not be doing it because of a "recording contract" and if you are a worship team leader and wanting to do it because of a "contract," I believe that it is the wrong motive. And Christians should be careful of that. Secondly, the praise leader/minister of music is an exception if he/she is hired on by the church. The problem is that people when they don't get paid much by church "A", they go to another church thinking they can be paid better and people tend to go "church hop" as music ministry is concerned instead of staying in one place, get accountability and get fed.
They most certainly should Gayle but maybe I didn't get my point across well. It should come from there hearts of course and not be all about the money. But remeber what I said before I said this. It's all in God's leading. He knows if they will be sincere enough to be a worship team member with or without pay. I just though that maybe it wouldn't be a problem for them to get paid if they do a really good job and have a sincere heart about the whole thing and are not just in it for the money. If they are not sincere then they are not worshiping their just singing. Sorry for leaving that out. The people that I'm talking about are members of a church and the comment about the pastor is what I was saying Joseph.
I'm a contracted singer and this is definitely a sore spot for me, so i'll say it depends on the situation.
Could care less about this. There's too many issues happening in the world than to worry about this. If the church can pay them then fine.
it would depend on time spent and why they are doing what they are doing. i totally agree with people in ministry paid to do what they do so that they can do it, and focus on ministry rather than having to work other jobs... but if they are simply playing an hour or so on sundays i would not agree with payment. if their whole life and work is spent (or the majority of their time and life) in the church/ministry then yes, they should be paid... it is the way the church takes care of those who minister.
The short answer:I pretty much agree with Mr. Gaines. What really kills me is how singers seem so disposable,but a musician can get away with a WHOLE lot. Again, this is variable among churches...but for the most part it seems like a musician can do whatever they want and keep their position...AND still get that good cash flow...it's like they'd have to do so much more wrong than a lowly singer to get "sat down". Maybe that has to do with how much a churches music carries and dictates the flow of their service. We (the praise team) don't get paid at my church, our leader does,but we don't...I'm ok with it,because i don't believe money should really influence your willingness to serve/minister...i can say that i thank God for musicians that seem to be striving and winning...but the stuff i've seen previous to where God has led me now and just being around is astounding at times!
A friend of mine was in a similar position but he was the musician of the Church. I believe if playing in the church is their major source of income, they should get something for it. And if they are pro, they should get paid as well. But honestly I don't believe they should look for pay because the same principal applies for singers who minister in different churches, should they be paid as well? No unless they are pro or thats their only source of income. I personally wouldnt want to get paid for singing at my own church, things could be better with me but I don't want to get paid for my ministry through song. If its a gospel star like CeCe Winans or Donnie McClurkin I understand. But saints from the church want their HOME CHURCH to pay them? NO thats not right. Ultimately if their heart is right and they put God first, there will be no issues with pay. And NO praise teams should NOT get paid in my opinion because the same principle applies to them as Musicians and Soloists. God bless you for this much needed post.
ONE last thing. If Saints from the church want their HOME CHURCH to pay them? Thats a definite NO. It just doesn't seem right.
I dont think musicians should get paid either - but then the church wouldnt have a band I guess.
What makes people think that if they get paid they are doing it from the heart. I voted it depends on certain factors. The factors that EJ named are a start. I took lessons from a musician who was getting paid. When the church got into financial trouble, the pastor ask him to give up his salary for a short time. He told the pastor, "no, you give up YOUR salary!" I didn't know what to say! Someone on this board commented about those volunteering their services being mainly white. That is not true in every case, many large "white churches" (I hate that term) are paying LARGE salaries to their worship leaders. Salaries large enough to nicely support families.
IMO the Minister of Music is quite different then the P&W team collectively. Should the Minister of Music be compensated yes. Because there is more that goes into it. Do I know of Ministers of Music who will turn pay down or give it right back to the church,yes. Music as a serious part of the service not just the morning warm up. This means holding the people in front of you at the same standard you would a preacher who was to deliver a message. If a Pastor got on here and said I am leading this church bc it is a contract and they pay me, Streaming Faith here I come. We would blast him to....well no where bc we don't have that power; but their name would be mud. The Psalmist of the church are just as responsible for ushering us into the Spirit or a place of worship as the preacher. So if they are there for a check are they in essence false prophets or leading us astray in their monetary ministry? PS I got the Head of the Usher board over here they want back pay :)
I think it depends on the factors listed in an earlier post. (size of church, level of professionalism etc). When you look at the time and commitment level for excellence, why not? Many pastors are paid for what they do---and as a psalmist and worship leader (and preachers kid) who rarely received compensation---why wouldn't people be paid for giving their time and talent? Sometimes I feel that churches take advantage of us because of our service to the Lord---sometimes we are treated as if we don't matter. Will it stop me from singing? No, I am just very selective regarding where i focus my time and energy no.
Whoops--typo duly noted I me "now" instead of "no".
I Absolutely don't agree about getting paid for bing on the praise team... It should come from your hart.. and not just looking for a payed check evey Sunday, Then that takes your eyes off from what your really supposed to be doing.
I see a lot of comments that are saying "you shouldn't get paid, it should come from your heart." But I'm curious as to why people are saying it as if the two are exclusive. Just because you get paid for something doesn't mean you're not doing it from your heart. There is a difference beteen REFUSING to sing unless you get paid, and accepting payment for something that you're already doing cuz you love it. I do this blog, day in and day out, from my heart. It's sooooo not for the checks. But what kind of crazy would I be, as the checks come in, if I say "no, no... It's from my HEART"?! Nahhhh. Now, I'm not saying I disagree with you all, I just wanna clear that up because it doesn't logically follow, to me, that if you're doing something from the heart, you can't get paid for it.
It is interesting to me that we will readily pay Pastors, who are supposed to be trained in biblical exegesis and expository preaching, yet are relunctant to pay musicians and singers particularly who train for years to do what they do. Granted, I have been in both situations as both a paid singer, unpaid singer, worship leader, and music minister. As far as I am concerned, if this is their living and what they do with their life, then singers should be paid. There is an underlying argument that we are not addressing in this matter which is the deep-seeded struggle between singers and musicians (As it goes, musicians study and work harder than singers...). However, I believe we should revisit that thinking and remember that quality singers spend just as much time rehearsing and preparing as a quality pianist, drummer, or saxophonist. For me, it still comes down to whether music is their livelihood. If worship team members are being paid than they should also be participating in things similar to what the music minister does for the church during the week. It is true that when doing music ministry, our ministry is not just for 2-3 hours on Sunday (1 hour for my Catholic brethren!). We should also be helping people build a worship life in their own homes and offering intercessory prayer, section leadership, and counsel (where appropriate training has been gained) to other non-paid members of the music ministry like the choir or amatuer singers and musicians. It is definitely about more than the singing!
I personally feel that it is totally up to the leadership of any given church whether or not a praise/team should get paid...If you are a part of a minstry or know of one that does not, please dont throw shade..The pastor knows whats best for his church and whether or not the church is financially able to handle such... Just saw something here about this same issue>> http://www.gospelflava.com/articles/doesitmatter.html
No the worship team should NOT get paid! If they getting paid -- so should the choir members, praise dancers, etc. What makes the worship team SO set apart from other ministries inside the church? Everybody has to put in time for rehearsals. If it's an inconvenience to your home and work life then find another avenue to serve. Where ONE person will refuse to sing because of money, you can always find somebody else who will do it for no charge but for true worship & reverence to the Lord. I'll take them.
I agree with kiesha...if you pay one then you have to pay them all!! at my church we have a full band including a saxophone player and NO ONE GETS PAID once a year the church has a musicians appriecation where each player gets $50-100 each but its a love token not a requirement.....the disiples didnt get paid to follow jesus so why should sunday morning singers?
Personally, I don't believe that a church should have to compensate a worship team, because it doesn't make sense to. If you start paying the liturgical dancers, the P/W leaders, and the like, then you should have to pay every usher, every choir member, every member of the mother's board, every deacon/trustee (who isn't already lining their pockets...I'm just sayin')....the list goes on & on. There was a time when working in the church and sharing your gifts with the local body of Christ was it's own reward.
@estyle, just want to clarify that i said "i can name many churches (mainly white) where musicians are serving"... that wasn't a generalized comment. Speaking from my personal experience; churches where i personally know musicians who play for free because the church does not offer payment. And truthfully, i emphasized "white" because i dont think i can name a skilled black musician friend (including myself) who doesn't get paid. Heck, i got paid when i was 13yrs old playing at my old church. But i'm fully aware that many predominatly white churches pay their musicians well. Recently, I had an opportunity to fill in as worship leader for a fairly large church with multiple locations (predominately white church) and i was quite surprised to find out that NONE of their musicians get paid. And i'm talking full bands at 5 different locations. My mindset was that a large church = money. So i just assumed musicians would get compensation. (this point is just a general comment) Lastly, I know singers work hard at their craft and always feel like they get the short hand of the stick when it comes to musicians getting paid more. But i dont fully understand why people dont understand SUPPLY & DEMAND. A highly skilled musician is harder to find than a skilled vocalist. Its much easier to replace a soprano than it is a lead guitar player. And when ur ONE of several sopranos in a group... generally u not being there is not as bad of a hit than a musician not showing up. IMO
@ a. will You have offer a knowledgable opinion here serving as both a musician and a worship leader. Thank you for sharing. Is your opinion that the worship leader (not the whole team, which I know was the question) should not get paid? I just want to understand your position. I am a worship leader and have been for many years, I have never been paid at any of the churches that I have served. but I know that there are many who do. I became aware of this when i visited a career finder website which posted a position for a worship leader. The salary was not bad either. I serve at a small church in Japan and would never consider receiving pay, however I cannot rule that out for other worship leaders. I fully agree with EJ, just because you get paid does not mean that it is not done from the heart.
The house of God has become such a place for entertainment that people don't go looking for God or to serve God -- they go to be entertained and to show off their gifts. The "musician" issue that the black church finds themselves in is because of the "senior pastors" wanting to be popular. This allows the musicians to sell their gift to the highest bidder. As a musician myself, I've been approached by pastors who want to pay more than I'm getting at my home church. This is issue is now perpetuated within the worship leaders and praise teams. " "The hired hand runs away because he's working only for the money and doesn't really care about the sheep.". John 10:13
@ EJ--I agree with you on this one but I'm surprised you're suprised at the results....money, Jesus, and somebody getting paid is always a touchy subject.
God forbid that anybody pay me for my praise. Personally, I would be afraid for anybody to give me anything for my worship, as I know that God knows my heart; however, I want my praise to be pure, true and genuine. God Bless.
@Selena-- I definitely get your sentiment and I'm only responding to probe deeper... What would you say to someone who says that we worship God with our lives, so your logic would imply that we shouldn't get paid as we "worship" on our full-time jobs, too?
@EJ Oh you little devil's advocate! Lol! I LOVE IT!!!
@estyle, i do not agree with paying praise team/choir members. I think singers (who are members of the church) should serve with their talent. (this is excluding contracted IN singers) However, I think min of music or worship leaders who also run the music dept should get compensated due to the work load. And most likely, they were contracted in anyway. As u know, if you're working a full time job, the work load of ministry can be very taxing. And if leading a ministry IS your full time job due to the size of your church, then of course, you should be compensated. How else can you provide for your family? And also, i dont equate musicians to singers.
I think it depends on whether or not you're a contracted singer. If you don't belong to the church, then I believe there's nothing wrong with being compensated for your time. If you do belong to a church...eh. Let's just say I wouldn't accept regular payment from my church as a vocalist unless they were keeping me so busy that I could no longer work. If I'm the PT Leader, responsible for teaching music, coordinating schedules, etc., that's different. Depending on the size of the church, that position can be very demanding and a stipend (even for a church member) is understandable. I'd also say that in that situation, ALL leaders...not just the PT Leader...who serve weekly should receive stipends (dance ministry leader, choir director, etc.)...if they minister EVERY SUNDAY...since they probably do the same amount of work.
I'm agreeing with the fact that if it keeps you from a 9-5 then you should get paid, but if it doesn't .....from the pastor to the usher...then you should have a 9-5 like everyone else. No one in my church gets paid....if we hire lawyers or someone from the outside then that's different, we have to pay them...but anyone working in the church doesn't get compsensated...we all work or don't eat, it's that simple.
@a. will Thanks for answering . . . But you bring about another question . . .Should church contract in singers? Doesn't God meet the needs of the church? But that is another question for another time.
@Estyle, whew, yeah that is a good question. But i will just say, the ONLY reason I would be against contracted singers/musicians is when there are sufficiently skilled musicians/singers at the church already but the pastor or min of music just wants the hottest band and are not willing to cultivate the talent within the church. Therefore, they seek out top notch folks and pay obscene amounts for it. But guess what, that's kinda normal... But for start up churches who lack in the music ministry area, contracting in singers/musicians is a great way to build a music ministry. That's what i did. When my church was start up, i brought in friends to sing on sundays until i was able to build up people from the church. But now my team are all members of the church and they sound great (if i might say so myself) So its like borrowing money from a bank to invest... hopefully that investment will turn over profit so that you can begin to create ur own wealth. (was that analogy over the top?) And i also believe that EVERYONE should be a part of a church body where they can serve and grow... if you're just a church hopper for a paycheck, that's not cool. And each contracted singer/musician should really try their best to not seem EXCLUSIVE from the church body.
I am one of the appointed praise and worship singers at my church. If my pastor heard this question, the entire planet would be laughed to SCORN. I think there are very few ministerial (versus administrative) church roles/position that should have a salary attached to it. Praise and worship singer ain't one of 'em. And what's worse is the idea of a "contracted" singer. Why? Isn't there anyone who is a member of the ministry able and willing to sing? Now IF the minister of music is a full-time staffer, compensation should be attached. And that means that that person's fingers better be on the keyboard E'RY time those church doors are open and they had better be at every rehearsal from the main choir to the children's choir, men's chorus, harmony singers, senior choir, quartet, you name it, that PAID musician had better be there with a smile on the face! ;-)
@ Tam-Tam: AMEN!
@ a. will Thanks! The analogy was a little over the top, but I get. One thing you said really really stuck out to me . . . willingness the cultivate was the church already has. That's important.
@Tam Tam I hear you. But with any start up church or small church, you may not have singers, a sound man, musicians, a visual media guy, cleaning staff...etc right away. Sometimes you may have to hire people to get a kick start if you can afford to do so. And sometimes a church has to create a paid staff position for jobs that are demanding time wise. It all depends. My church received a grant when we launched so we were able to afford a quality sound system and but had no one to run it. So we had to contract someone to do so. It was an investment that has proven to have been a great decision. We've created an environment where visual arts and sound are not issues for the congregation or newcomers. Realistically speaking, music ministries can be a draw for some people. Its a HUGE part of the worship experience for many. I know some churches who place unskilled people in certain positions and its not always productive. Just because Man Man listens to his iPod all the time doesn't make him qualified to run the sound board. But unfortunately, some churches have to operate that way due to lack of resources. But all in all, I just personally think contracted singers should be purposed to help build and nuture a music ministry for a period of time.
@ Tam Tam - I never thought it was possible until recently, but there are churches that DO NOT have enough or any effective singers in it. I've gone to 3 churches in my life and I am being humbled by the musical talent pool at my current church since my other churches had STELLAR music departments. There are 4 good young adults (3 altos & 1 soprano) & 3 good adults (1 tenor & 2 altos. Not enough for an adult choir, or a young adult choir and do notice that I didn't mention any kids, lol. Again, I never thought this was possible but the weight of everything falls on these 7 people. The PT never gets a break and Lord help the 1 soprano and 1 tenor, lol. So sometimes, there is a serious lack of the able...never a lack of the willing, lol.
I was one of the persons that picked "absolutely, not their service should be to the lord". I don`t think that Worship teams should go in wanting to get paid, because the love of money is the root of all evil. However, It depends on alot of factors. If you want a worship team to play at your church, it is only fair that you pay them. I don` t think you should just leave them empty handed and expect them to be cool with it .Moreover, I am not saying that it matters whether they get paid or not, it all comes down to what you intended. First you should put God first and not worry about your expenses,because God willl supply all your needs according to his riches in Christ Jesus! In conclusion, it depends on your intention;don`t go in expecting to get paid because God call us to be servants not entertainers wanting to get paid.
the service is unto the lord but i think they should get paid. it's alot of hard work and it takes alot of time and practice especially wen you want to present ur best so if the church can afford to pay them i think they should but the money shouldn't be the reason y ppl join the choir. thats my piece i no it's real late lol but yup
I must say, for those who have suggested that if a musician is paid then an usher should be also, this is a very odd comparison and not unlike comparing apples to well, orange-flavored cough drops. First of all, I'm not meaning to downplay the role of the usher (there are many other roles in a church operation that could provide comparable examples; we could also substitute a lead singer or a lead guitarist for a lead keyboardist as used in this example), but let's do a little comparison of a few different aspects of these particular services, both of which are considered valuable or essential in a church operation. TRAINING An usher can be trained in 15 minutes to do 90% of the things he/she will ever do as an usher and could well become a "great usher" after a few weeks or months of experience. How does this compare to the training required for an accomplished musician who might easily spend 1,000 hours (time for which he has usually paid someone) in training during his first five years at an instrument and still not necessarily be considered a "great musician" depending on a variety of factors. PREPARATION What is expected of a musician? At the least, that he/she should be prepared when it comes time to perform. Being prepared means being able to present a mastery of the instrument and specific style (sometimes several styles) of music. Preparation may mean one to several hours or more of rehearsal time for a single service. Next week's service will usually include an entirely different set of music which requires another few hours of preparation. In contrast, an usher has very little preparation time and essentially all of what he learns one week can be applied toward the next. EXPERTISE Even after a thousand hours of training and preparation a musician may still not be considered an expert at his instrument though he may be easily qualified to perform most of his duties adequately. At the least, he is expected to play the music correctly. If the usher mistakenly hands a certain visitor twice as many bulletins as required or hands it out upside-down it is no problem. The same is not true of a musician who not only needs to play the correct notes but precisely in order and a certain number as well. (After all, a musician understands that the space between the notes is as important as the notes themselves.) PERFORMANCE / LEADERSHIP ROLES Many church musicians are expected to provide some kind of leadership role, even if it is as simple as counting off the song in the correct tempo AND correct time signature AND start playing the song in the correct key. To fail at any one of these can be disastrous, not only for a song, but possibly for an entire music set, as the beginning is just as important as the ending and all parts in between. A pianist starting a song at the wrong tempo can hinder (or ruin) the performance(s) of one or more other musicians or singers. In contrast, should the usher get distracted and forget someone's name or drop a bulletin to the floor, there is no criticism and no harm done. Of course, this is one of the simplest forms of leadership for a musician that we might consider - many others provide even greater differences by comparison. RELIABILITY AND EXPECTATIONS Everyone expects that the show will go on... Most church musicians are expected to be available every week or nearly every week for one or more services. Most professional musicians (or others with professional attitudes) will still fulfill their performance commitment even though they are sick and really should be home in bed. Suitable substitutes are most often not easily or readily found. An usher with a cold is not expected to be available - a suitable substitute can easily and readily be found. RESOURCES AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS Today's pianist or multi-keyboardist can easily plunk down thousands of dollars for an instrument (or more than one) required for his own preparation of music for Sunday's service. There's really no way around this other than, possibly, using the church's equipment for preparation. Even when that is possible, there are additional travel costs and additional time and schedule requirements. An usher has no comparable requirement. GOD-GIVEN TALENT Here is an argument I've heard: Because God has given a person great musical talent they should give freely to God (through their service to church). I must ask, does not every person have God-given talent? Should the person who provides this website work for free because of his/her talent? How about those who invented, built or configured the computers and software that run this site or the phone equipment that connects us to it? Should the electrician who fixes the heating system work for free because he has been blessed with his mechanical talents? Should the person who cuts the lumber for the walls of the church building give of their time because they have the necessary talent and equipment? Do not all of these positions require talent, learning or training and do not all of them incur expenses necessary to provide such services? What makes a musician's talent special in this argument? If, as the argument implies, a musician's talent is indeed special, then shouldn't the expectation be biased toward greater compensation instead of less? One can only guess, but I would surmise that the person who makes this argument is either 1.) not a musician, 2.) not a very talented one, or 3.) doesn't need the money because he is already fairly (or more than fairly) compensated for other talents they have been given and have put to use. As a church musician, I would love to work for free and that would be much easier if all of you would work for free also. Unfortunately, when it's time to pay the rent or car payment or fuel bill, those who collect don't give freely even though they each have talents they use in their jobs. If none of us earned money for services we provide, everyone might eat for free, I suppose. But, that's not the way things work, of course, and I don't believe God expects or wants us to socialize every aspect of our lives anyway. ACTIONS AND RESULTS A good usher offers a smile, a bulletin, a good handshake, warm greeting or needed information, a suitable beginning to a visitor's worship experience and all valuable. A good musician offers of himself in other ways to help provide the same visitor with the next part of worship - getting closer to God. Should the usher fail to perform well, the other parts of the service should be able to make up for the failure. Should the music fail the worshippers, the rest of the worship team or the pastors, it's quite possible that no one will be satisfied with the service. TIME, THE PRICELESS COMMODITY It is not uncommon for music to fill one-third or more of the total time of a worship service. Considering then the value of that time, it seems that the musicians who are responsible for such a substantial portion of the service should be compensated as if the music is worth that much time. If the music isn't worth that much time, presumably it should be replaced with a different form of worship that is worth it. SUMMARY Each will draw his own conclusions, of course, and each has his own perspective and opinions. Mine is that a musician worth his oats shouldn't be expected to work for peanuts, much less for free. If God is not a respecter of persons, why would He be a respecter of professions to say that one is worth fair compensation and that another is not? Each role must be evaluated on its own merit and according to a variety of factors that make it unique. For the church that offers nothing but takes everything they can get from a talented musician (or usher) one must question the value they have placed on those who provide these services. I offer an example of a trained and talented musician: When I perform music as a profession (whether full or part-time) I believe I should be paid according to the task(s) I am called to perform and the investments (and sacrifices) in time and money I have made that enable me to perform those tasks. When I usher I enjoy doing it without compensation and my total investment and costs are about equal to the pay. Likewise, my compensation for music performance should also be in suitable alignment with its investment and costs. Most would agree with this practical statement: You get what you pay for. Thus, when one gets something for free one can't very well complain when the quality is equal to the cost. I have played with paid musicians who provided music in good quality and style. While I have also played with non-paid musicians who have provided the same, it has been a much more rare occurrence. I am certain this has not been coincidental. Should it not be our role to each do what we can to increase the quality and hence, the effectiveness of music in our worship services? How could God not be pleased with that? Finally, from the Bible we learn multiple times that the worker is worthy of his wages (support). If this principle applies to a lowly ox, why would it not apply to one who ministers through word or music? Matthew 10:10, 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 9:14, 1 Timothy 5:18 -----
Musician4Him - Uh...you really thought about this, huh? LOL...
@musician4him- lol i can't believe u took the time to type all that! well reguardless, i still think they should get paid :)
Musician4him, your post looks like a piece of legislation.
@ebonisun-rotfl! good one! (no offence @musican4him)
Some issues aren't that important. Others are too important to be dismissed with triteness or an uncaring attitude. Most website discussions I have read on this topic seem to fall into the latter category and tend to be mostly emotional in nature. Hence, I thought it might be worth it to explore it from a more rational than emotional position. Regarding its length, I admit it would take some patience to wade through it all. Had I spent twice as much time editing I could have reduced the number of words by 25% but the points would have remained the same. Thanks for reading with an open mind. :)
I agree with musician4him. I am a guitarist, worked several years to get the skill I have now. I can learn any worship song in minutes, hear the key and play accordingly when needed for spontaneous songs I've never heard, write a solo or lead on the fly and keep it as flashy or reserved as needed, I paid large amounts of money for better equipment, strings every month, cables, and picks so that I provide the best sound, use gas and sit through traffic, drive at 1:00 back from a worship set for some event, make it to practices, services, camps, and the like. And I'm seeing that you all think that musicians are unworthy of getting paid for their time and talent and gas and equipment expenses? Nobody is asking for a salary. But service to the Lord is impossible without money when you're a musician. It's completely fair and even commendable when helping a musician with things like that when he's providing a talent for the church. Helping with strings, sticks, picks, gas and gas is very nice, I myself know it would be a big help.
I believe there should be and offering for the praise and worship team..We set the atmosphere in the church to make preaching and teaching a little easier on the speaker for the day...Preachers get an offering for delivering the word, why shouldn't the praise and worship team get and offering for delivering the word through music?. We pay musicians without question, we give offerings to visiting speakers without a second thought. Why is the ministry of music being downplayed? There is voice lessons, rehearsals, and time mangement skills that needs to take place when your on to the praise team. I believe your gift is suppose to make room for you, first in the church community and then in the worldly ream. So yes, I believe there should be an offering for the team..
hey dude, did you know that you get paid to simply link ? check it out here >> http://adf.ly/?id=139209