Paying Worship Musicians?

Jan Springer from North Metro Church wrote me a couple months ago. His question: What about paid musicians? Where do you draw the line? Jan, I'll give you my thoughts but let me first apologize for the delay in writing. Bad Blogger :>

I can't speak for others, but I can speak for what we do in exchange (and at MCC). We do not pay our musicians. Fortunately, we don't have to. I do not mean that to sound arrogant. We just have a group of musicians who love to play. Seriously, I think some of them would pay to play. Hmm, maybe I should try that :>

Here are some additional thoughts:

• I can see paying a worship leader if you are requiring substantial time, have high expectations, and warrant many hours per week.
• Get a clear answer on why you pay musicians.
• If you pay one musician, you have to pay them all.
• If you pay musicians, you should treat them like employees (or contractors at least). What I mean is this: you are paying for a service. If they don't deliver or show up on time, that should be reflected in their compensation.
• The worship leader goes from leader of volunteers to manager of contract employees.  No thanks.   
• It could muddy the waters for serving. Where do you draw the line between serving and a paid job? Tough one to walk. Why not pay nursery workers?
• Once you start, it is probably hard to stop.

I know some churches that feel they need to hire musicians. They may be small or young and need to hire each Sunday. Others may be large and want to run it like a business with union and/or professional musicians.

All that to say this:  If I had to use paid musicians, I would set an end date and keep expectations as clear as possible.

Other thoughts????

Copyright 2008, Scot Longyear at Resonate

photo by zzzack

Comments

[adam herod]

I had some experience @ my previous church with paying musicians. It was a fantastic musical experience and certainly made that part of my job much easier. I have no problem paying musicians, but I do believe that you should not just look for warm, albeit talented, bodies. We made it a point to try and find people who bought in to what the church was trying to do so that they could become a part of our family.

Part of the pastoral issue of paying musicians for me is that I didn't want the folks we were getting to have no place to call home. It is easy to gloss over discipleship when some, or all, of your musical team is paid, but those musicians need to grow in their walk with Jesus just like I do. It was difficult at first, but we ended up with a great team of people who cared about being there. (one even started turning in his check after his family started attending)

In my current situation, we don't pay musicians because we have enough core talent that we can invest in and give others opportunities to express and grow in their gifting. There are some rehearsals where I missed my "hired" guys though. In the end, I'm thankful that with or without the cash being involved we were still able to maintain connecting people with God and growing in our relationships as the main thing.

[MartN101]

My Thoughts:
You pay a salary to the main worship leader - the one who schedules the teams, picks the songs, recruits and mentors team members, attends church meetings and so on. The other musicians should be there out of service to God, and not expect to earn a paycheck. That being said, I think a good church will find ways to instead offer occasional gifts of appreciation (restaurant gift cards,music gear, training, coffee on Sunday's ect).

[matt]

I think it is a hard situation to figure out. I currently have the best musicians I have even played with and they see this as a ministry. Sure, sometimes I have to deal with one that is mad and is wanting to quit, and because they are volunteer at anytime they can stop, but that is ministry. That is why I get paid to manage(for lack of a better term) the other guys and girls in the band. But they also see me as a pastor and not just some dude that plays guitar and sings, they see me as different then them.

[b/]

This is a long comment and for that I apologize. But I have been having this conversation and I greatly appreciate the forum to discuss it. It really helps me to see other reasons to or not to pay and to be able to discuss my opinion. So again, I thank you for the opportunity and apologize for the length.

Let me start by saying that we believe our role is to glorify God and to make Him known. When deciding to pay musicians you must decide what that means for you and what your vision and mission is. If paying fits, then do it, if it doesn't, don't pay.

I would respectfully disagree with the post about paying musicians I think you should. This is something we have been wrestling with quite a bit lately, and we are moving to paying our musicians.

Right now we have a team of people who are biologists, nurses, engineers, professors, students, burrito makers who also play an instrument. We get a decent sound each week.

Our purpose on Sunday mornings is to reach a group of people who are not familiar with church. Whether you agree with this next statement or not I cannot help, but we want them to have an excellent experience because that is what they get through the culture and we believe at our church that speaking the language of the culture is important. Therefore we have decided to pay musicians who are musicians (even to the point of using it as a ministry in bringing in phenomenal musicians who are not believers).

Here are some responses to the above post and some additional random thoughts.

1. Would you ask an architect or contractor to come build your church for free just because that's what they do and just happen to be good at it, or the flip side, would you ask a salesman for a wireless phone company to volunteer to help build the church just because he builds things on the weekend. (The argument here is the contractor does build so we should pay him, the salesman builds, but not to the level of the contractor. We've decided to get the best possible person for the task and pay him/her for what he/she's worth.)

2. We have some great singers who we will still use and not pay. Many will balk at this (seemingly hypocritical) idea. Its hard to find a great drummer, guitar player, bass player, keys player who understand what you are looking for and get them to be available on a weekly basis for free (and I don't mean just decent). We have an plethora of extremely talented singers. We will be clear up front with the what and the why of the difference. Contrary to some opinions, I believe strongly that it is possible to get heart and extreme talent.

3. Agreed, people who are paid should be treated and compensated based on how they perform all around. However, I was not hired for this job because they thought I would slack all the time. They hired me because they were confident that I understood their vision and mission and would carry it out. We will only hire musicians that understand the same. I think there is a presupposition that if you hire musicians they will slack and not perform up to the standards. There are those people. Don't hire them.

4. I don't go to managing contract employees. I go to playing with a great group of musicians who I can disciple and grow. I lose the stress of teaching the same song over and over again. I lose the stress of worrying about the quality of sound I am going to get and level of musicianship. I lose a great deal of stress all around. We mesh better, we know where we are going as a group because we see each other all the time rather than every two to three weeks. I know that when we play together, people will not be distracted by the band and the quality of leadership as they worship.

5. It can muddy the waters. That's where we have to be clear on how and where people serve and why and for whom (that would be Him). We do pay our nursery workers already, because we want the parents of those who have not connection with the church (and even those who do) to have the best possible care for their children which is exactly what we want and what they want. A great experience. Our nursery workers are amazing by the way.

6. Once we start, we won't stop because the level of musicianship will rise and we don't want to go backwards.

Our role is to glorify God and to make Him known.

We've decided that to make Him known means to reach those who don't know Him. (I don't mean to categorize "those," because they are people and I recognize that, but it will help the thoughts flow.) Those people go to concerts on Friday and Saturday night that are amazingly produced. If they come in to a Sunday morning service that lacks the level of musicianship and production, they immediately have a disconnect. That is the last thing we want and the last thing they need.

[Susan]

If preparing to play and playing an instrument for worship takes the kind of time that other paid church staff positions take, then I can't think of any rational argument against paying.

However, if the time involved is not exceptional, then paying seems inappropriate -- as if one is saying, "Because you're so talented or professional, we pay you by the hour to worship with us." In that case, Sunday School teachers who have teaching degrees would be paid by the hour to teach Sunday School.

Interesting that you'd mention a nursery worker. That's the one job I CAN see paying an outside "professional" to come in and do for pay -- ideally someone who attends a different church with services at a different time, so no one within the church family (particularly an exhausted young mom) has to miss the service.

[Chris]

But does this refer purely to music or worship leading? Surely the role of a worship leader is pastoral too, which warrants a paid position? In terms of pure musicianship, volunteering is a great thing and provides a way for church members to serve in a way which is fitting for them, while under the leadership and authority of someone in a worship position.