Pastor salaries not keeping pace with inflation

No kidding:

• Compensation has lagged because churches cannot afford to pay a pastor much. This won’t change. It’ll get worse, as people discover they don’t have to pretend to be Christians anymore and stop coming to church.
• Health insurance converge remains low because a church can’t afford to pay a pastor much, therefore it certainly can’t afford to chip in for decent health insurance. Pastors should explore health care sharing ministries like Samaritan Ministries or Medi-Share.

I earn high five figures with my state job, and have excellent health insurance for my entire family for only $450 per month. No church can beat that, or even hope to match it. Bi-vocational, team leadership (you know, like the teamwork we see in Acts …) is the future.

…..but then I remember churches with a full board of missionaries, each receiving $50/month or so, barely enough to cover trips to visit the church on furlough. #Priorities, I guess.

I would also guess—can’t prove it but it’s my guess—that churches that take pastoral care seriously enough to pay for their upkeep will reap benefits of deeper growth among believers and better evangelistic efforts. Pay for an MDiv, get MDiv results, more or less. No objection to Tyler’s tentmaker point of view, but if we build people instead of buildings, we might get somewhere.

Bi-vocational, team leadership (you know, like the teamwork we see in Acts …) is the future.

Yes! This is what I’ve been saying for years. It’s the only way I’d go back to vocational ministry.

I agree. That’s the only reason why I RETURNED to pastoral ministry; I wouldn’t be alone and my salary wasn’t at the whims of a church. This is the way forward for the future, I believe:

• A return to the biblical model of dual-pastors
• Pastors with skills and education that allow them to earn a decent living in the real world and relieve the pressure on the shrinking church budget
• Pastors who are realistic about what shrinking attendance and shrinking budgets mean = bi-vocational ministry.

There are tons of men out there who will never go into solo ministry again, because they’ve been burned … just like I was. I’m also certain there are tons of men who’d be willing to do it, if they weren’t alone and could be guaranteed enough of a salary from a church to pay for mortgage and utilities, and be bi-vocational to make up the difference. That’s why I came back.

To whoever reads this = If you have pastoral training, and you left the ministry because of a bad or difficult situation, and you’d be willing to come back under these circumstances (see above), then message me and let’s talk. We need another elder at my church. I’m making my search official in about two months, but I’m unofficially looking now.

There is a need for bi-vocational ministers in some situations. I did it for a number of years. The issue is that intentionally bi-vocational seems unbiblical for the church. Those who preach the gospel are to live of the gospel, not live of the gospel and something else (1 Cor 9). The laborer is worthy of his hire and those who rule well are worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in preaching and teaching (1 Tim 5:17).

Biblically, it seems that the pattern is to be full-time pastors and bi-vocational pastors are exceptions for reasons unique to the situation. If a pastor intends to allow the church to disregard those commands by bailing them out of their responsibilities, don’t be surprised when they take you up on the offer.

[Larry]

Biblically, it seems that the pattern is to be full-time pastors and bi-vocational pastors are exceptions for reasons unique to the situation.

I tend to agree with Larry on this. I’ve shared my thoughts with a little more detail here. It *does* seem that the NT provides a precedent for “tent-making” pastors in certain occasions. Yet it urges congregations to adequately support pastors who lead and teach them well. This, not tent-making, is the biblical norm.

I agree that the ideal situation is one in which the pastor is fully supported by the church with a salary and benefits commensurate with the community in which he lives. The question is how do you get the church to give sufficiently to meet that need?

If the church can’t give to that level, bi-vocational pastors can meet the need.

Another means is that the church add to its membership new believers who are taught the importance of committing themselves and their money to the work.

There has been a pretty significant resistance on SI to the concept of tithing. There is also a regular lament on SI that fundamental churches are unable to support their pastors properly. Could there be a connection? (Just wondering.)

For sure, place and circumstances often dictate the need for the pastor to be bi-vocational. And if God in His Sovereignty has called you to serve as a bi-vocational pastor, then praise God that His grace is sufficient and His will perfect. But I’m not convinced that we should be steering into the concept of bi-vocational pastors. Instead, I believe that we should be willing to do the often hard and uncomfortable work of discipling and training our churches to make financially providing for their pastor (or pastors) a priority. Pastors are to devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word. Being bi-vocational is an obstacle (sometimes a necessary obstacle, to be sure) to doing that. Instead of embracing the obstacle, why not preach against it and pray that the Holy Spirit will grow congregations into a better understanding and practice?

The biggest issue I can see as to pastoral pay is the size of the typical churches we have these days. I just ran some numbers for where I live. If we assume a church of 100 members, and for simplicity, call it 25 families of 4, and give each family the median salary (which is a good bit higher than the mean salary for our area), pay the pastor’s family the median salary, cost for their health insurance (those costs are high, even with high deductibles) then take into account commercial rental rates, with utilities. etc. for our area, a church will be hard pressed to make all its expenses, and still have a facility that meets needs with nursery, etc. This of course, does not include multiple elders. AND, it assumes 100% tithing (or giving 10% if tithing is not the term you would use).

I used those numbers, because our church is about 100. We pay the pastor’s family about 17-20% above the median rate. Commercial rents in our area are out of sight, so we are currently renting a Ruritan Club, which is almost giving it to us, at way less than market rate. We’re able to stay above red ink, but we are in a high-tech area, and a good number of the people in the church make salaries above the median, but that’s also why rents are high. I don’t know the percentage of tithers, but I think we do pretty well. I’m very happy that our pastor doesn’t have to be bi-vocational, as I think that’s the biblical model when it can be afforded, recognizing that that is not always the case. We take on missionaries at a minimum of $100, and most of them now get more than that (some more than double that), but we don’t take all that many on, so we can do right by the ones we have. Still, I think 100 is pretty small for running a ministry that can afford a full-time non-bi-vocational pastor paid a reasonable living wage.

If our church were 200 instead of 100, with the same percentage of tithers, we could fairly easily afford another pastor/elder, enough meeting space, etc., because the additional expenses for a facility that would meet our needs would not be double what is necessary under our laws for 100.

But many churches today are small, without some of the financial resources of being in a good area. And even if the people are giving sacrificially, it’s unreasonable for many of them to afford a full-time, non-starving pastor. For a man to be able to properly provide for his family and still take on a smaller work like that, the church should realize that they have to accept a bi-vocational pastor, who won’t be able to give full time to that ministry unless it grows.

Even recognizing that living by the gospel is the ideal, we should not expect a pastor to be required to do so at a rate that does not let him provide properly for his family.

There has been a pretty significant resistance on SI to the concept of tithing.

And with good reason. Yet the NT is clear in giving. There are a lot of reasons that churches are unable to support their pastors properly. No doubt, some of it is giving. Some of it is priorities, unwise past decisions, unreasonable pastors, lack of foresight to provide housing, etc. Is there some connection? Perhaps but teaching tithing isn’t the answer.

Tip Toe Through the Tithers

Dave wrote:

The biggest issue I can see as to pastoral pay is the size of the typical churches we have these days.

That’s the issue; not tithing.

JoneE wrote:

Instead, I believe that we should be willing to do the often hard and uncomfortable work of discipling and training our churches to make financially providing for their pastor (or pastors) a priority.

That sounds very spiritual; like something right out of a Puritan paperback classic. I like it. I tried telling that to my wife, when we were eeking by on $24k per year with a family of five and a church of 30 members in a rural-ish, low-income area. It didn’t go over so well!

In my experience, these are the facts:

• Most church members tithe
• Most Christians are very generous with their giving
• Most churches are small (less than 150), and getting smaller
• Most churches use a large proportion of their funds to pay a pastor; the noose keeps on tightening

Add to it:

• A solo Pastor model is sub-biblical and not found in the NT
• Yet, very few churches can afford to support two elders
• A bi-vocational approach will allow your church to actually do ministry, instead of expanding all its dwindling resources on salary

If your church can swing it, then stay fulltime along with another pastor. Go for it. But, chances are your church can’t afford it. So, what’re you gonna do? Keep watching the budget creep lower and lower, until you get to the point where you feel proud of yourself for finding $1000 for outreach for the coming year? Gimmie a break!

Facts are facts. Bi-vocational ministry is the practical reality for small American churches in the coming years. It’d be nice if it weren’t, but thems the facts. The budget doesn’t lie. Or, you could always take this approach to church growth …

Sure, it’s ideal. Sure, it’s the norm that SHOULD be. But, churches are shrinking. Unless you are building a religious business with man-made methods like Andy Stanley, God has to add/multiply to the church. If God has sovereignly chosen that churches are in a season of decline nationwide, what are you and I going to do about it? Go make false converts to fill the church so we can have a full time salary? That’s the Church Growth Movement way. Otherwise, you improvise by “tent making” and that is a special circumstance.

5 Salary Classes of Fundamentalist / Conservative Evangelical Pastors:

• The generously paid (A)
• The adequately paid (B)
• The marginally paid (C)
• The underpaid (D)
• The unpaid (bi-vocational) (E)

The C’s are hoping to move up to the B’s

The D’s likewise up to the C or B’s

The E’s are pretty secure and may be very happy at this status

There are very few A’s. Some C’s have learned to live on much less and this sustains them. Some C and D’s unable to become E’s because of limited skills and experience to be bi-vocational.

The graphical presentation would likely NOT be a perfect Bell Curve but leaning towards the lower pay scale

I’ve experienced all classes. A and E are the best!