I meant to write about this some time ago.
Holly Boardman has a petition at General Conference that deserves wide discussion and debate. The petition would cap* pastoral compensation at twice the rate of the base salary for a full-time clergy. If a charge chooses to exceed the conference maximum salary, it would be required to contribute a matching amount to the conference equitable compensation fund. That fund would either supplement pastoral salaries to the base level within the conference or be used as gifts to be sent to annual conferences in greater need of clergy support.
As Holly indicates, many of those gifts could be used in Africa where many pastors receive little or no pay despite working in extremely difficult situations.
Holly has said she has been told the petition has little chance of passing.
Even so, it is interesting to read the comments on the proposal at Holly’s blog, including a couple by African clergy who say the proposal would be a great boon to their ministry.
Here is one such comment from Bishop John K Yambasu:
Hollis, you have hit the nail on the head. In Africa, we continue to lose the best and the most trained and qualified of our pastors simply because we do not pay them “acceptable living wages”. Those we struggle to send over seas for higher studies never come back at the end of their training because of our poor conditions of service. Rather than negetively impact ministry, this petition if passed at GC will completely and totally transform ministry in Africa and will send membership increase in geometric proportions.
If Holly’s proposal is not a good solution to this problem, then I hope the General Conference spends some time talking at length about the good bishop’s observations.
* See Holly’s comment below for a correction/clarification about the petition.
Thanks for your post, John. I would like to make a slight correction. In several decisions the Judicial Council has clearly stated that ONLY the local charge can set a pastor’s salary. There have been several previous attempts to “cap” pastoral salaries, but each attempt has been ruled unconstitutional. I was aware of this as I wrote this petition. So, I was very clear to say that the annual conference will “recommend” a maximum compensation level for pastors that is no more than twice the minimum they establish. A “recommendation” is not a cap, and is not mandatory. A local charge STILL retains total authority to pay it’s pastor what it chooses (either under the minimum or over the maximum). The really new feature of my proposal is the requirement of a local charge that votes to pay MORE than the recommended maximum to pay the same amount back into the equitable compensation fund and the ability of annual conferences to choose to give funds to other annual conferences with greater need (such as central conferences).
I believe this proposal is consistent with the Biblical guideline of 1 Timothy 5:17-18 with regard to pastoral compensation. It would bring equity and justice into our compensation system and would restore some balance in the church.
By the way, Adam Hamilton believes this proposal would harm the church. Although I respect Adam Hamilton greatly, I disagree with him. I believe it might be a needed corrective to the CTA he is endorsing.
Did Hamilton give specific reasons?
Thank you for the correction, Holly. I have no doubt the policy would have an effect on the church. I wonder what “harm” means.
In a private conversation on FB Adam told me that he believes my proposal would be a “disincentive” to pastors. He also believes that long-term support of struggling congregations with pastoral compensation is a bad idea This is based on his experience with churches in Russia. A Russian bishop told him that he believes salary support from the church in the US has hurt the growth in the Russian church. Obviously, other bishops disagree with the Russian bishop. Although I did not discuss this further with Adam, I do not believe he realizes that my petition says NOTHING about supporting a particular declining church long-term. Neither does it say we should support a particular conference long term. That decision can be made by an annual conference equitable compensation committee with advice from GCFA. I also do not believe that he thought about this proposal enough to realize that it would probably mean a TEMPORARY influx of money to churches/conferences in need. As churches in the US adjust their salaries closer to the twice minimum standard, the extra funds would gradually disappear. On a GLOBAL level, there would be a more equitable standard for clergy compensation.
The bottom line, in my opinion is a BIBLICAL issue. Should the church use the Bibilical standard of 1 Timothy 5:17-18 as a guide to clergy compensation, or should we use the standards of Wall Street/American economics to guide us? I vote with scripture, as unwise as it may seem to some. I think it may restore a sense of scriptural holiness to The United Methodist Church if we adopt my alternative view. It also helps us claim our identity in scripture as a global church.
I tried searching for the petition on the General Conference app but couldn’t find it. Perhaps they haven’t all been uploaded yet. I hope this isn’t a bad sign.
It IS listed. Look under the title of the petition “A More Equitable Salary”.
When I searched both petition title and text, it doesn’t come up. When I search only title, it does. Odd.
Hi John, thanks for sharing this. I appreciate Holly’s concern for pastors around the world who receive little or no pay. I do have one question. If a maximum recommended salary were required and implemented; and if local churches had to pay matching funds into the equitable comp fund were they to exceed the maximum recommendation, which might be perceived as a penalty; and if every church chose not to exceed the recommended maximum in order to avoid what is perceived as a penalty for exceeding that amount resulting in no contributions to the equitable comp. fund, then would it not be the case that the compensation of many U.S. clergy would be dramatically reduced and no extra compensation would go to under compensated pastors?
Perhaps I’m missing something, but it seems like many churches would simply lower their salary rather than have to pay extra into a Conference fund. The result would be that U.S. pastors lose compensation and little would be given to help under compensated pastors around the world. That seems like a lose-lose situation.
Matt, I should let Holly speak for herself, but her concern is two-fold. One is the inequities in compensation in the USA, which is addressed by the maximum recommendation. As she writes, if the conference feels the minimum compensation is a fair floor at which a clergy member can sustain an acceptable standard of living, then twice that is surely enough.
The second issue is the problem of pastors in other parts of the world who have almost no compensation. Holly’s proposal does hinge on the practice of congregations and clergy using higher salaries as a mark of success and status. If they abandoned this practice, then this part of the proposal would bear no fruit, but its first goal would still be accomplished.
Congregations that reduce salaries would have more resources freed up for local missions, so I’m not sure that is a loss.
Fundamentally, I do not see how a pastor living in a parsonage (or with a housing allowance) would find living on $75,000 a year a hardship.
Thanks for making these points, John. What you describe as the second goal of the petition seemed to me the main objective. And as you indicate, if churches don’t participate, then it won’t work.
I tend to think that most churches would lower their salaries to the max in order to avoid paying what will undoubtedly be construed as a penalty for exceeding the maximum or as a tax on wealthier congregations. I’m not saying that is what this is; I do think it would be construed or mailigned as such. Our Conference (AL/W FL) recently moved to direct billing with our health insurance because many churches simply weren’t paying that line in their apportionments. We learned that many churches were not willing to pay for the cost of clergy serving in churches in other than their own. Once again, I’m not endorsing this; simply pointing to the reality of it. Other Conferences have moved to direct bill insurance for the same reasong. This suggests to me that churches will not be too interested in paying their own pastors more than the max recommendation if it means paying money to the Conference for the cost of clergy in other churches. We’ve learned from experience that that doesn’t work very well. For these reasons, I think this petition, were it passed, is unlikely to have any significant impact on the compensation of under paid pastors, whether they serve within our own Conferences or in other countries.
I agree that $75,000 plus housing will not be a hardship for many pastors, particularly in places with a relatively lower cost of living, though it might be more challenging for pastors with larger families in parts of the country with higher costs of living. I suppose each Conference would have to figure all that out. I wonder how limiting the salary of the pastor would effect the ability of our churches to recruit and keep highly effective pastors. With a max recommended salary (and increased cost for going above the max), it seems like we might have difficulty keeping the best pastors in our churches. Instead, they might be inclined to move to churches in other denominations or non-denominational churches where their is no limit to what they can make. Churches with higher salaries will appear to appreciate and value the pastor more providing increased incentive for our best to go elsewhere. Would that not damage our already ailing denomination?
Thanks for hosting this discussion.
Matt,
I’m troubled by the notion that we have to compete to keep the most effective pastors by offering them better salaries and benefits than other denominations. I certainly will need to reflect on that some more.
On your other notes, I do see congregationalism running rampant in our connection. It is probably not avoidable, but I wonder if we should give in to it.
And yet, the rationale for the proposal is that we have to compete for clergy in Africa. Why is it not troubling that we have to compete to keep the best and brightest in Africa, but troubling that we would have to do so in the US?
I agree with the need help better support our brothers and sisters in Africa. In Missouri we have partnered with the Mozambique Annual Conference to support salaries of pastors and superintendents at sister churches. Perhaps rather than taxing US churches that pay higher salaries to their clergy, we should encourage ALL congregations to consider how they can partner with our African churches to help spread the Gospel of Christ.
The issue of pastoral compensation in the US is made more difficult by the vast disparity in church sizes. Hamilton is correct that the proposal would have a dampening effect on pastoral salaries above the recommended maximum since since it would double the marginal cost of the salary increase. And it would serve as a disincentive for pastors, as it would any one of us if we were told we were not allowed to earn more money because it would cost double the increase we receive. I also believe the proposal would create more resentment between (especially large) US churches and our sister churches in Africa…exactly the opposite of what we need, and primarily among the churches who are best positioned financially to provide the support you seek.
I’m not sure the “competition” for African pastors is anything like the issue here. Pastors in Africa are competing with survival and basic standards of living. Pastors in the United States are competing for second cars and nice vacations.
Again, I come back to the question. If the base salary is sufficient for a clergy member to have what the annual conference considers an acceptable standard of living, then how can twice that be insufficient, unless money is our primary motivation?
As for large churches resenting African churches, I missed resentment on the lists of the fruits of the Spirit. Are we setting policy to endorse the fruits of the flesh now?
Note, I get a bit frustrated when we begin talking about $75K as a potential hardship–contrast this to the hardship and burdens faced by effective central conference pastors this is downright sinful. I am also frustrated by our never-ending focus on OUR needs in the US. We are a GLOBAL church now–even though there is still inequity among us.
The notion probably should be troubling. It may, nevertheless, be the reality. And one with which we must reckon.
Is sending money up the pipeline the only (or best) way to maintain the connection?
It may, nevertheless, be the reality. And one with which we must reckon.
I’ve never been very good at that.
Is sending money up the pipeline the only (or best) way to maintain the connection?
Of course not. I hope I did not imply that. But the money would not be going “up the pipeline.” If people prefer, a system of direct transfers to African annual conferences or other places in need of funds could be arranged. That way it would not go up but across.
“Across” would certainly be better perceived I suspect.
John, thank you for picking up the conversation and making MY points well. (I have been traveling for the last few days and not online as much as usual). Here is a post that I wrote that presents an alternative vision for the United Methodist Church–a vision which I believe my petition would help to inititiate.
http://hollyboardman.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/the-choice-to-be-in-the-middle-class/#comment-162
I would appreciate your comments.
I doubt very much that we are in competition with other denominations over pastors. I would think that a Methodist pastor is called because he feels the calling and Methodism is the Christian expression that suits him or her best. I could be wrong. Holly’s proposal seems similar to the NHL payroll cap intended to even out the competition throughout the league. I am not a hockey fan so I do not know if that really works. I see several issues with this.
1. The constitutionality of the proposal. If it has been determined that this cannot be done then why bother attacking that windmill? Her time and energy would be better used in other ways.
2. There is no linkage between salaries in this country and salaries in Africa. If she wants to subsidize African pastors then go ahead and propose that. It is a separate issue. This sounds like the argument used in state legislatures for casino gambling. We can use the added tax revenue to improve our schools or roads or whatever. But since money is a fungible commodity it never works out that way. This is merely a ploy to get approval.
3. Pastors have the ability to get a pay raise. All they have to do is grow their churches. More people would mean more money flowing in.
4. Fair pay? Says who? $75 thousand seems like a lot of money to some but a pastor with three kids in Fairfax County Virginia will have a tough time on that salary. The local market and cost of living determines what “fair” is not some working group in the hinterland.
5. Supplement salaries within a conference? Would this not simply be propping up ineffective pastors? I see no value in that.
6. Even if caps were imposed highly paid pastors would still be highly paid by adding various allowances and perks to the base salary. That would avoid the high pay surtax she recommends.
Kevin, I’m curious what you see as the theological and Methodist traditional arguments in favor of the system we have now.
Holly critiques it as buying into corporate and consumerist impulses in our culture, running in the face of biblical and Wesleyan admonitions about money, and promoting inequities across the connection.
I hear in your response a defense of the system and — at least to my ear — praise for pastors seeking higher levels of compensation and avoiding the spirit of church policy by using loopholes. I may read your intentions wrong, though.
On the issue of Fairfax, VA, I wonder if we have any pastors in minimum compensation arrangements there. If the conference thinks the minimum compensation is enough for a pastor in Fairfax, then how can twice the minimum be too little? If I live in a church-owned parsonage, doesn’t that remove much of the cost-of-living concern?
Let me begin by saying that I do not believe that pastors are in the job simply for the money or to rise up through the corporate ladder. If money is the motivation for a pastor then do something else. I defend the current system because it is self-regulating and it is simple. Churches will not pay a pastor more than they can afford. Subsidizing a congregation’s budget with other people’s money is a waste of resources. I am not talking start-up situations.
Once we start regulating wages we will have to put in place an entire infrastructure that sets pays and allowances. Look no further than the military which has a rigid pay scale but enormous manhours are expended in calculating pay, allowances, specialty pays, housing allowances and on and on. Are we prepared to set up a staff that does that? What would it cost in time and staffing?
A pastor of a large church should be paid more. He has more responsibilities. That is kind of how it works. That comes under my view of fairness. The pastor should not have to seek more money when he goes from a small church to a large one. He should expect it. It is a fair question for a prospective pastor to ask what the compensation will be. He does have a family to care for and family budgeting is no different for him or her than for anyone else. A working spouse may also be a factor. If there are fewer employment opportunities for the spouse then higher base pay might be part of the package. There are too many variables for a one size fits all solution.
I used the example of Fairfax County because I once lived there. Housing is expensive there. I have no idea if there are minimum wage pastors in that county. If there are then I can only assume that the spouse is making the real money or there is a generous housing allowance or house. I remember well the sticker shock I experienced when I moved from South Texas to San Jose, CA. Unbelieveable! Do we really want to be micro-managing things like locality pay or pay based upon the number of children a pastor has?
I say let the local church do with their money as they see fit as long as they are paying their assessments and that means paying their pastor and staff as much or as little as they so choose. I am also saying that if The UMC tries to regulate pay on a national level or even at the conference level the local churches will either ignore that or exploit loopholes. Let it go and leave them be. We have larger issues with which to contend.
I have no theological argument for my position. We live in a country where businesses are expected to sustain their business without subsidies. If income does not meet expenses then the business will soon be out of business. We carry that mentality over to our houses of worship. If a church cannot afford to sustain itself then it shuts down. Each church is in charge of its own fiscal health.
As a side note I have no idea what our bishops are paid but if we are to limit pastor pay to 75K lets limit bishop pay to ten percent less and remove the financial incentive for a pastor to aspire to bishop.
Thanks for expanding your thoughts, Kevin. We disagree on several points, but I don’t imagine either of us will convince the other.
Kevin, here is background for my question for you. I was appointed 1/4 time, unpaid as assistant pastor and food/crisis ministry director. I am a single woman, 52 years old, caring for my disabled adult son who lives with me. I am living far below the federal poverty level. As a LLP there are no paid appointments in my district available (or apparently in my conference). As director of the crisis ministry I oversaw a $25,000 annual budget, many volunteers, procurement of food and funding, saw a dozen of the ministry clients and families join the church, counseled on average 7 people in my office every week, began a thriving soup kitchen, assisted senior pastor in all aspects of a growing church plant, and after 4 years of pouring my heart and soul into this church and ministry (over 3 years under appointment), I was asked to resign because I wasn’t putting my heart and soul into that congregation or attending evening meetings. Or dressing well enough. Or attending a small group.
Oh, forgot to mention, I am a full-time undergrad student in my 6th semester, paid for through student loans, going on to my MDiv. After I resigned as requested, DCOM refused to continue my candidacy based on the fact that they (SPPRC) asked me to resign! There was no complaint of misconduct or bad theology. No one on the district or conference level has reached out to me for followup in any way, in spite of the letter of appeal I sent in over three months ago. I am willing to go and serve anywhere I am needed, in any conference that has a need. But it seems I’ve worked myself out of a job! For nothing. (Oh, OK, they gave me food and gas money! 1099)
I understand that the recession caused problems for LLP’s. I understand that because of the guaranteed appointment system, the Elders had to be placed first. What I don’t understand is how I worked so hard, for so long, in a wildly successful appointment and they discontinued my candidacy, with no complaint of misconduct of any kind.
My question is this, can you tell me what’s wrong with this picture? I feel as if the Licensed Local Pastor is the ugly stepchild of the UMC. Am I wrong to feel this way? If so, please tell me why.
I believe that the guiding principle for the GLOBAL United Methodist Church should be the BIBLE. Thus, 1 Timothy 5:17-18 can be considered viable in BOTH Africa, and the United States. Our standards of living are certainly different. “Enough” might mean something different in various conferences and cultures. That can be determined locally.
As a retired pastor, I can think of no better way to use my time than attacking this windmill. Especially since this petition was born as a distinct prompting from the Holy Spirit during a morning devotional. Last August, I took a group from my church to the Willow Creek Leadership Summit (at a satellite location in Orlando). I was deeply moved by the presentation of a Coptic nun known as Mama Maggie Gabron. She began her presentation by reciting the Magnificat—Mary’s Song from Luke 2–”My soul magnifies the Lord…” That text haunted me for several weeks culminating in the birth of this petition. Frankly, I believe that God may again lift up the lowly, and bring down the mighty from their thrones. I am doing my best to obey a prompting of the Holy Spirit as I advocate for this proposal.
There may be some constitutional issues related to a salary cap, but I think the constitutional concerns (the absolute right of a charge to establish a pastor’s salary) ARE dealt with by the intentional language in my petition which STILL allows a charge that right.
Please read the actual petition and my blog posts at http://hollyboardman.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/a-more-equitable-salary-petition-to-general-conference/ and http://hollyboardman.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/the-choice-to-be-in-the-middle-class/
I read the petition. If you feel so moved to tackle this issue then by all means have at it. I personally think you are trying to do too many things within one petition; compensate African pastors, increase pay for some in this country, prevent some pastors from getting rich, add a surtax to churches with over compensated pastors, establish a standard pay scale. This is too big to chew on. Will the delegates have time to digest this if it even gets through the committee? Given the energy that will go into the proposed reorg I do not see how they would even touch this. That is my opinion of course. I could be wrong. BTW, I doubt very much that we have a lot of pastors who are getting rich. Curiously those who are paid the least or nothing at all are experiencing to highest growth rates (Africa). Maybe we have become too comfortable in this country.
As I said earlier, I wrote this in obedience to a prompting of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps I am just planting a seed for the future. One of the proposals of the Call to Action is to rewrite the Book of Discipline so that it reflects our global character. Perhaps this Biblical principal can be incorporated into that rewrite. I have discussed this petition and this idea with the head of the Nigerian delegation. He is enthusiastic about the concept, and may continue to work toward reforming the church so that we continue to restructure ourselves according to the guidelines of the Bible rather than the US Constitution. I honestly don’t think the CTA will bring spiritual vitality back into the church. But reform MAY come if our community chooses to live according to scripture in every aspect of our lives. I see hope for the church in Africa. We have much to learn as we realize that we are a global church.
I am a career change itinerant pastor whose entry into ministry meant a surrender of stable community, family relationships and the opportunity for alternate careers. I was told by my first DS that churches needed gifted and called pastors who were trained and ready to lead our church. I was elected to local government office four times and have a graduate degree in another discipline. After 18 years in ministry I continue to serve at minimum compensation in one of our lowest average compensation conferences.
I am appointed to an open-country church with no community to draw on. They are quietly faithful and committed to mission in their small ways. They made a conscious choice to stay small a number of years ago. Population in urban areas of the north-east has dropped over 50% since 1950. Shifts to rural residences has not meant those who do move here disconnect from their suburban social supports. Few of our replacement members come from somewhere else.
We have far fewer congregations than most whose attendance is above what our denomination considers a small church (200 average attendance), large church by our standards. The churches in my Conference have an average attendance of barely above 70 on a Sunday morning. The Cabinet continues to appoint one church/one pastor rather than create a larger circuit with a supervising Elder and local pastors or CLMs.
As a single income home I have never bought a new car, was unable to help my children through college and will probably serve to the mandatory retirement age as my pension is small, despite regular additions to my PIP account.
With only small, rural congregation experience I am an unlikely choice for a suburban church appointment. Experience previous to ministry seems to carry no weight.
I now have two graduate degrees and am working on my DMin, mostly out of pocket. Perhaps that will make a difference.
I am 58 and have 9 years before I will draw social security. Financially, I would be far better off to have been a local pastor and put all my tuition funds in the bank. I might have a better income too.
Bill,
Thank you for sharing your story with me. Thank you for your ministry. God bless.
Pingback: One pastor’s story | John Meunier
We all have different perspectives. A local pastor may feel differently about this than an elder who has been at a large church for a long time. Someone who has been retired for nine years and served an average of two years at each appointment during their pastoral ministry is going to feel differently than an elder who has been at a large church for a long time. A leader in Africa is going to see their benefits and may not focus on any of the shortcomings of this proposal.
There are many times where regulation works best because of our tendency to be selfish and go for short-term gain. But this is not one of those. If you are going to tell a church that pays its pastor very well, pays its apportionments and billings and has its debt under control that it needs to pay a tax because it pays its pastor too much according to an arbitrary scale, then you are going to have a great deal of conflict without a useful solution. Speaking directly with those pastors and their SPRCs about whether to make a contribution to salary support for African pastors instead of another salary bump will probably generate many more dollars without the angst.
Again, I say that bringing the United Methodist ethic regarding clergy compensation under the authority of scripture has value in itself. It will help us reclaim our identity as followers of the Way rather than Adam Smith or Wall Street.