The case against paid ministers

I saw an interesting post in the recent Slashdot discussion on Microsoft withdrawing its support from the bill to add sexual orientation to the workplace discrimination law in Washington.

The Other Side (Score:3, Informative)
by Khomar (529552) on Thursday April 21, @06:43PM (#12307978)

Homosexuality is neither a choice (that's long ago been proven scientifically)

There have been studies that seem to indicate this, however the methods and sample populations used make their conclusions dubious at best (a high number of known criminals, for example)

Furthermore, as it's entirely unrelated to capacity to perform most any given job or what have you, there is no reason that discrimination on the basis of sexual preference should be permissable.

Here you come to the real crux of the matter. It is entirely related to the job of a pastor. Think about it. Most Christian churches in this country teach that homosexuality is a sin akin to drunkenness, marital infidelity, and stealing. Just as you would not want to hire a pastor who was a drunk because he would be a bad example to the congregation, so you would not want to hire someone whose lifestyle exhibits what the church teaches as a moral wrong. This law would make it impossible for churches to reject candidates whose lifestyles are those of a homosexual despite the fact that it is opposition to their religious teachings (protected by the constitution) and really common sense. Do you want to hire someone who actively stands for something your organization is expressly against? To put it another way, would you want to hire a development manager that encouraged their developers to write slow, unmanagable code?

The Bible expressly teaches that elders (pastors are considered elders in most churches) of a church should lead lives that are "beyond reproach". This means that whether the candidate's lifestyle is characterized by being a habitual liar, glutton, drunk, adulterer, or homosexual, they are disqualified from service in the church.

On another note, it should be added that homosexuals can qualify as elders if they do not practice homosexuality. I have listed many other sins to make the point that we all are flawed and tempted to what the Bible teaches as wrong, but just because you are tempted to behave in such a way does not mean that you must behave as such. The proclamations in the Bible are not any stronger against homosexuality than any other sin. There is no room for "homo-phobia" in Christianity. The expectations for those tempted toward homosexuality are no different than those who are tempted to cheat or steal. Both are expected to live lives of repentance and obedience to scripture if they are to seek a pastorate or elder.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, that is a case-in-point about why ministers (bishops, pastors, priests, elders, or whatever else some church might call them) of any kind should not be paid. By paying them, you turn their service into a secular thing.

In my opinion, this is one thing that the LDS do really ... right. The bishops aren't paid. The missionaries aren't paid. In fact, not only is a missionary not paid, but he has to pay for his entire mission. This has the effect of a high-pass filter in that it weeds out everyone who isn't that passionate about his faith. I remember meeting one bishop who was an air-traffic controller. Frankly, he's one of the coolest people I know, and I very much respect him with regards to his religious beliefs. The major difference between him and this "chieldprotagee" clown is that he doesn't go around telling people that the Bible condemns them. Every time I've heard him speak, it has invariably been about unconditional love, acceptance, and fellowship.

Getting back to the idea of a paid ministry, there are plenty of other things that I don't like about the LDS religion, but this isn't one of them.

Whose bright idea was it to start paying people to tell them the word of God? And does anyone honestly think that this has absolutely no influence on what the minister says?