-
Website
http://www.ragamuffinsoul.com -
Original page
http://www.ragamuffinsoul.com/2007/06/to-pay-or-play-or-maybe-just-pray/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Do you have to pay? No. If you can pay should you? Sure. It all depends on the philosophy behind your Sunday services. For us, it is creating an irresistible environment for people who don't attend church and that requires excellence for the music. That's just us.
I strongly dislike and would discourage 'session' players. However, in our case, I do think that it would be beneficial to build an 'A' team of musicians, give them some sort of stipend to keep them committed and allow them to become a great band.
- Hosh
We had this discussion awhile back on my blog; so my full take on it is - here if you want to read it.
OK so that was my first try at HTML hyperlinks above there, so I hope it worked...
Help me understand your assertion re: "ZERO community" in the session player scene. I've had a different experience, so I'm curious to hear what your experience has been, and what would lead you to that position.
Not challenging you on it, bro, I'm genuinely curious about what makes you feel that way.
My session experience at "certain large churches" (Crossroads, Harvest, CC Costa Mesa, Lake Avenue, etc) was that the session guys were generally good guys who were trying to make a living playing music, took their instruments and the music VERY seriously, and were really, really stoked to get a break from the bars and the clubs and have a chance to earn some scratch in a setting that focuses the honor on the KING.
Just my experience. It's a different sort of community...
mjd
Andrew
Should we be financially rewarded on what gifts God has given us?
Does the Pastor at these large churches (or any other church) get paid?
How about the worship leader? Does he get a check?
If so... do you find that appalling as well?
Does collecting a check automatically invalidate ministry intent? Is the pastor and/or worship leader's service and/or worship diminshed by the fact that they earn a living doing it?
What about the guy who fixes the church's plumbing when it breaks? Shouldn't he just do it for "ministry"?
Community is something that is built over time. I play, UNPAID, for ONE church in a drummer rotation and STILL don't know all of the names of everyone i play with. The guitarist, bassist, sure, I work with them the closest. But community is more of a time thing. Time and trust. To the spectator, Mr. Joe Middleclass in the audience, may have no clue that something is not jiving, they are hearing a combination of instruments creating music.
To us, we see an episode of "will it blend" with disconnected rotating people thrown in.
Is there a fine line between taking advantage of or respecting a servants heart?
Answer to Question #3. Receiving a check does not automatically invalidate intent. However I do think that we are called to live and serve in a community of believers, and not hop from church to church in order to play for pay. I don't see the roots that can develop from playing gig to gig.
Answer to Question #4. Again I differentiate between career and lay ministry.
Tony, my question to you...
How does one choose what ministry is more worthy of finacial retribution?
Wasn't Matt Redman's song The Heart of Worship written during a time when their church realized that none of the stuff really mattered. So if you are at a place where you need to pay for people to play, why not use the money for someone in need, single mothers, orphans, the poor...
I agree with a comment above that says it is also about the heart. I have no problem not getting paid and i am not jealous of the people i know personally who do. it is their place to decide if their compensation is deserved or not. and it is their heart which decides if they are being superficial or authentic when they play. i believe i am authentic when i play. thats all that matters to me.
however, another spice to throw in the soup: what if the musician is authentic, has no job, and has a need? a lot of musicians are pretty poor and gear is top dollar. should he/she be compensated? if you compensate one, do you compensate them all? do you keep it a secret?
juicy discussion....
Actually. Nevermind. It will take an hour to type what I am thinking. Hold tight for an hour and check back for more gasoline on the fire.
Re: on staff / not on staff. I guess I would want to dig deeper on your perspective there. How does the fact that they are "on staff" impact your perception of the appropriateness (what a terrible word) of their paycheck?
Re: hopping church to church... I hear you there. But how does that collide w/ the session guy's need to earn a living; if this is his trade?
Re: differentiate between career and lay ministry... I think that is the genesis of our disconnect here.
You asked "how does one choose what ministry is more worthy of financial retribution?". Well, again, back to our difference of perspective re: career vs. lay ministry.
IMHO... as much as I want to puke when I use these terms in regard to ministry...
I think it's a supply-and-demand issue, which is informed by the church's desire for levels of quality. If the church desires a certain level of quality (there's a demand), and they are not finding that level within their congregation on a volunteer basis (there's no supply), they may be willing to compensate to get the results they want.
Musicianship is a specialized field. It also happens to be one that many people make a living in. Greeters (just to pick one ministry) - not quite so specialized, and not one that people tend to make a living doing.
Back to the plumber. Your church would love it if a church member volunteered, and was qualified to fix the pipes. But if no one does, or if the guy who does is not qualified... they'll go hire a plumber.
And in the NT, it was essentially evangelists who got paid. So, all of us are frauds (okay, at least I am).
Bottom line...I think that musicians who will only play when they get paid are a joke. I think that churches who refuse to pay a few bucks to a guy who helps create an environment where people connect with God are a joke.
C
You asked a few other questions...
Do you compensate if he/she has a need? Well... I think helping folks in need and compensating people for services are different issues.
If you compensate one, do you compensate them all? This is sticky... but, back to supply and demand. I'll pay a drummer or bass player before I pay anyone else. In my expereince, there's a smaller supply of competent drummers / bass players than acoustic / electric / keys players.
The summation of my argument is that the payment of people on a worship team is a slippery slope. A slope that I can't seem to find any clear distinct edge that defines why a electric guitarist would need to get paid over a church struggling to raise up good small group leaders.
From a worship leader perspective - I generally tried to stay away from paying players. It's just a box I didn't want to open. I tried to make sure the band knows how much I appreciate them in other ways.
But, from time to time, to fill a spot for a sick guy or whatever, I'd call up a session player to fill in.
Slippery...
Obviously, (as seen by the varying opinions expressed in this blog)
like most things in ministry, it seems to be a case by case, Church by Church decision.
I like the way it appears that New Life is doing it (desperation). Some are paid, some are not. (I think that's what they do).
In a dream world, where money isn't an issue, I think everyone should get paid (or not paid).
"And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need." Acts 2:44-45 (NASV)
Sounds good to me!
But alas, we don't live in that world, do we? Therefore, I think it all depends on the vision and priorities of your Church. Is hospitality important? Then pay the greeters. Is Children's ministry important? Then pay the teachers. Is the preaching of the Word and/or leadership important? Then pay the Pastors. Is music/worship important? Then pay the stinkin' musicians!
Of course all of this has to be done with discernment and much prayer. You wouldn't hire a new Pastor without spending time getting to know him and his vision/passions/commitments. Why would you hire a musician without doing the same?
As far as CCLI goes, I look at it as paying for the quality arrangements and recordings that come from a good producer and a top notch recording studio environment. Ever spent time in a studio? Money!!!
Either way, I hope that if you're paying a Worship Leader/Pastor that he/she is creating something more than just a copy of the original artists' music... hopefully you're getting a leader, an artist, a worship leader! And not every worship leader out there is playing only covers.
So... this conversation has gone on so long that no one will probably even read my response, so let me leave you with a parting question to ponder... no response required.
Did the Levites get paid for their musical services?
Eric
On a serious note, I don't like the idea and I think I would refuse any offer. I sort of consider my worship band service as a part of my "offering" to the church and, somehow, would feel like I was stealing from the till.
Just me... I am certainly not judging anybody who does get paid. Just doesn't feel right by me.
OK. I have read everyones POV. Here is where I am sitting.
Tony, the perspective I am giving about session players and lack of community stems from those who play at any and every church willing to pay. Saddleback one week. Harvest the next. Costa Mesa the next week. Simi Valley the next. I cannot seem to find any sort of justification in this. Besides paying the bills. We all have those needs.
Now. Saying that. I have no problem with those players who are paid and involved in that local community. But IT IS OBVIOUS when the community comes second to the cash. And I think that is the original intent of the post.
Per Tylers statement...He is in a whole different ballgame than I. I actually listen to their worship bands and take notes from them. When you are the size of a North Point or a Saddleback, and DO NOT pay your players who mostly earn their living doing nothing else besides playing their respective instruments, I think it is wrong. I do. But that might just be me. I personally think that most of those players WHO DO PLAY AND ARE INVOLVED in their local communities, would play for free. I like what Christian said earlier..."I tend to pay people who don’t do it for the money. And at what most churches pay, they’re obviously not doing it for the money anyway."
I am coming from a church planting background. When I started at Sandals it was me on acoustic and Moi on bongos. We had 50 people coming to our church.
Now pushing 3000, stakes are higher and skill is better. Resources are more and when a church grows YOU MUST BE CAREFUL not to just adapt a system that works at a North Point or Willow and throw it at your local community. Most of my guys have been playing 3 services a Sunday for over 5 years with little more than a penny for their thoughts. I have forked out my own cash to buy iPods and such just to let them know how much I think they are worth. The biggest mistake one can make is just copying a bigger churches system and implementing it into their own. Your will fail. And Fast.
Every church has different philosophies. And at Sandals...seeing Authenticity as THE philosophy, I am having to work this whole thing out differently. I can't see having guys who don't pour into each others lives on a weekly basis Authentic. And as hard as it may be as we continue to grow, that is one thing that my boss won't let happen. But remember. This is Sandals stance. It is not right or wrong for you. But right for US. As soon as I figure it out I'll let you know in my book which will cost 10 bucks a pop.
Los
Hey, I've recently made a pretty good friend through it. Actually we met through these blogs. So...there is a sense of community getting paid to play. I think the "sense of community" thing also depends on the church.
I'm starting to tiraid here.....
OK......Los, just because I don't know these guys I'm playing with doesn't mean I'm not trying to get to know them musically and spiritually while the service is going on. Heck the one "big-church" where I've played recently, no one even introduced themselves to me before we "ran through" the set. It ain't always the guys gettin' paid who aren't pouring themselves into each others' lives. I take the time to talk to the worship team members and get to know them at least a little....."what do you do during the week?" "got any kids?" If I see them again, I'm able to follow up with any thing.....Yes, Los, you will need to work through this "thing". The other "smaller church" I've played, the people were some of the sweetest people I've met in a while.....and also the most reserved. It was very hard to worship there.....they are "starting" their contemporary worship program and they haven't gotten in to it as much as other churches.....I'm talking no raised hands or anything like that......it's a little cold....which is like the mega-lo church where I played.
So......it's not about the people getting paid. It's about the church itself.....I think.
I would pay you tomorrow if I needed you to play at Sandals. Because these things called blogs ACTUALLY work and I get to read what is in your head on a daily basis.
Here is the deal. In 2 weeks I am leading worship at another church on a Wednesday night. Are they paying me? HEYLL YES they are. Why? Because it is going to take me away from my family and is a gig. Will I still be able to lead them in worship even though I am getting paid and do not "get fed" there? Of'course. Let's not be silly here. But I guess for me it comes down to community. It is the same reason at Sandals we do not have a mid week "Bible Study". We try and take the BS out of Bible Study. Because we could be a church who is all up and grounded in the Word but relationally retarded and have not even began to understand the purpose of the church.
Wow. What a tangent.
GREAT THOUGHTS BY EVERYONE.
Los
so if you ever need a fill-in i won't ask for a check but if you want to buy me some chipotle i'd be stoked...
and west, they're not participating because i am introducing songs they've never heard or if they have, i'm putting so much swing into it, they're lost. but that is a sweet congregation isn't it? you wanna play the 1st, 15th, 22nd, 29th? i might throw a burrito in it for ya.
I guess, in my experience, I really enjoyed getting to know the friends I made in the session community in the 951 and 714. And, for the most part, the guys I played with were guys who make a living making music, but also understand worship, and have a home church – so maybe you and I know different guys, I guess.
Straight up, man, just like West said - living in SoCal w/ a family – I had to do whatever I could do to pay the bills. Playing guitar (at whatever gig) was an easy way to make extra money for me. There were SEVERAL instances over the years where we didn’t know where the grocery money was going to come from, and BING – a Sunday morning gig popped up.
With that in mind, I tried to be sensitive to that when I was leading and had the need to hire guys now and then. Never know how GOD is looking to provide for someone.
I think the piece of this puzzle (not that it’s been specifically articulated here, but it’s a general sentiment I’ve heard time and again over the years) that I have the most trouble swallowing is that the ministry intent automatically decreases in based on the size of the paycheck. I guess I can only speak for me and the guys I played w/ at several churches in SoCal when I call B.S. on that.
Sure, there are guys that just do it for the cash. Then again, some engineer who worked in the studio on United’s latest, or the guy who mastered Redman’s last record, or the monitor guy at the last Harvest Crusade probably just did it for the cash too – were the ministry efforts diminished as a result?
Tony....shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! If Oscar reads this he'll only offer food for me...I need food for the family...ha!
Los, I forget people actually read my blog and know me a little....HA! I thought we were supposed to get together sometime and play....I emailed you (sniff) and never heard back....(sniff, sniff).
Church-hopping week-to-week for the paycheck has not-so-good feel to me.
However on the topic of paying musicians...I hope I don't come off egotistical here...
When considering who should get paid and who shouldn't, I tend to look at this issues in the light of "Who HAS to be in place to get the job done?"
Who are the Sunday Morning Critical Components that are necessary to have in place to meet the God-Given Focus and Mission of the church?
If your worship leader HAS to be there on Sunday Morning to make it all work, chances are he/she's committing a lot of time and effort into that job. They probably have been sick as a dog but had to drag themselves in to lead more than once. This person is a Critical Component. IF the budget allows, pay him or her.
Same for musicians. If the church goal requires excellent musicians and the budget allows, pay them. Gear isn't cheap and even a small bone from time-to-time helps, right?
I don't want to sound egotistical, but there is a difference between 'Critical Components' - those WHO must be there to make things happen - and 'Important Components' - those who do important work but can more easily be filled-in for or replaced. Yeah, when it comes down do it, we can all be replaced, but you know what I mean.
Part of it is I know of at least 2 churches in SoCal (Sandals being one) that fall into the mega-church category, don't pay their bands, and have awesome worship experiences.
To the point that there are some paid position, ie. pastor, worship pastor, etc. - true. However, I do think there is a discussion as to what those people are paid to do. Yes I am paid, full time at my church. Yes, I do lead worship among other responsibilities every Sunday morning, and I do consider this part of what I get paid to do. However, I don't see that as my primary reason for being paid. Biblically, I feel like I am here ful-time with the goal of equipping others to do ministry. I'm not sure where this discussion goes or how it effects the issue exactly, but it seemed worth bringing up to me.
At the risk of sounding uncaring or un-understanding, I'd rather have a slightly lower quality of music with a higher quality of worship due to hearts of service. I think if you have a church the size of Saddleback, or Willow, and are in an area where there are lots of artists, and you can't find enough quality musicians who want to volunteer their time for worship, could there be a deeper issue there? Either you don't have enough musicians and you have to ask yourself why, or they are unwilling to give of themselves for the mission and vision of the church (within reason, of course) and you have to ask yourself why.
....OK....I'm over it.
Sorry I don't have anything worthwhile to add - other than:
- I'm glad churches have the autonomy to make these types of choices themselves.
- I agree that musicians are worth their weight in gold, as are children's workers who change my daughters poopie diapers...
- I agree that "pastors" are charged with "equipping" people to do the work of the ministry (however you define that - for me it's building those relationships ie community). That's what they should get paid for - lot's of people can preach/teach/lead worship - it takes a pastors heart to build a church.
- I think any statement like "I would never pay/not pay" is really stupid.
- I'm glad we have this place to talk, thank you Los and everyone...
Pay the plumber, pay the pastor, pay the sparky, pay the cleaner, pay the musician. A fair days work for a far days wages. And if you have a pastor that is really really good at teaching scripture. pay him double! (1 timothy). That's biblical.
Feed the poor - with good meals. Clothe the naked - with good clothes. Build buildings of quality, buy things of quality, be lavish. Use the good silver. Use the nice perfume. be generous in all areas.
Let's be honest, churches don't pay musicans because everyone thinks it's just fun fun fun and there are so many wannabe players hoping to play.
We settle for the cheapest available. Sometimes that's all you can get, but is church musicians were properly looked after there'd be a far higher standard of art glorifying God - instead the world has by far more interesting music than the standard church fare - because that's where the money is. Everyone has to eat.
Didn't the temple musicicians get fed and taked care of as part of the preists in the old testament? It means people can really focus on their jobs.
Handel's "Messiah" exists because it was commissioned by the church - or at least King George, head of the church in those days.
Many of the composers were employed by the church - in their day that music was the at cutting edge.
Today church penny pinchers put up with bland out of tune music whenever they can get away with it. "Money better used for the poor" is a common argument.
If you pay your church admin people but not your musicians then clearly something is upside down.
Of course, every church should spend it's money with wisdom. There nothing wrong with volunteer players, my point is that there are basically only volunteers everywhere. Artists have to sell Cd's and market themselves just to put food on the table. What a shame.
It becomes tougher than you think.
http://www.buzz24.org/story.php?title=jenifer-l...