Pastor salaries not keeping pace with inflation

A pastoral salary paradox (I’ve seen this):

• The case of adequately or marginally or underpaid pastor
• Missionary candidate (fresh out of seminary school) needs $ 80K to go the the mission field
• Sometimes that mission field is here in the US
• Mission board won’t let him leave for the field until fully supported
• The pastor thinks … “huh!?”

A careful examination of the missionary needs reveals:

• Expenses for private schools for the missionary’s college kids
• Retirement account
• Have an extra child? The missionary’s support level goes up!

The pastor thinks? Interesting … my salary package has non of that.

Real life current situations:

Church A: Pastor has just retired at age 75. Church in a good location has 20 members and no debt. Pastor has lived on a small salary plus Medicare and Social Security. Church can’t find a pastor who’ll come for the same salary as the retiring pastor.

Church B: 60 year old church has had 2 pastors in the last 40 years. (20 years each). There’s a parsonage. First of the 2 recent pastors scraped by as the church got older and smaller. Second pastor had his health insurance paid by the church while his children’s was paid by the state. He worked 2-3 part-time jobs. Unable to find a pastor, they have called an interim retired pastor who preaches for three services a week for a love offering to supplement his SS.

Church C: A church plant where the sending church supplements the new church in providing sufficient support. Church gets to the point in 5-6 years where they can support the pastor themselves and become independent. The church is taught from its beginning that its top priorities are pastoral support and an adequate place to meet.

Church D: (For Jim) Pastor is having a hard time financially and leaves the church for the mission field where, as a missionary, he receives adequate support.

Having only pastored only one church, which I started, I don’t have a variety of experiences to draw from. I know my salary was Very slim for the first several years, then became barely adequate, and eventually generous. I have turned down raises about five times in the last dozen years because I’m afraid that an overly generous salary will be a hindrance to my ministry. Our church is not exactly large, averaging around 235 in morning worship. We support three full-time elders with decent salaries and benefits, and a fourth part time, plus office staff, custodial staff, etc. We give one third of our total income to missions. We have no debt, and significant financial reserves. We don’t have many members who could be considered wealthy. Why are we so blessed? I really can’t say. But I do know that I have taught tithing over the years. Not as a NT command (it is not), but as a time-honored figure (before Moses) by which to gage an appropriate level of God-honoring giving.

And in the case of a foreign missionary, international travel must also be budgeted.

Tyler,

I agree that a plurality of elders is Biblically acceptable. Where is it mandated? More specifically, where are two elders mandated?

I have to say that I wildly disagree with your assessment that two part-time pastors who are bi-vocational is the way to go, over one full-time pastor. If the one full-timer is spending his days watching reruns, well, then…. But if he is a responsible, professional, growing minister, I see zero advantage in replacing him with two part-timers who have other interests, other burdens and other concerns—especially in a mid-size or larger church.

(Where do you find two such guys? Where else will they work? What if they make different salaries at their other jobs? What if one works more at the church? This would have to be just the right fit at just the right time to work in most places. Also, would you enjoy going to see a bi-vocational doctor, lawyer, auto mechanic, etc.?)

Of course, my response is also a generalization and every situation is different. I suppose it also depends on what you mean by bi-vocational. But, I have to say, I find your preference/presupposition to be quite curious.

Our experiences are varied so no surprise so are our opinions. After almost 40 years in ministry I think I’ve seen some of the real life situations others have mentioned.

1. Planted a church in Philadelphia after seminary in 1982. My wife worked full-time. I received $200 a week in support. We were self-supporting in about one year.

2. Went to France then to Romania for church planting and pastoral training. Raised support in less than a year and churches were generous. Rarely lacked for anything. I have to admit that we never had great financial needs (I know that’s not true of all missionaries).

3. Returned to the US and associate at large suburban church for 10 years. Decent salary and benefits and worldwide travel to teach all expenses paid. Invited to conferences, colleges and seminaries. During that time, from 2006-2008 we lived in Paris and helped start a new church. It was a good gig.

4. Moved back to Philly in 2009 and became bi-vocational to start a church with no significant core group. Have been bi-vocational since. We are in an economically depressed, high crime neighborhood (where I grew up and got saved), and our church is predominantly African and Latino immigrants with a few white faces scattered around. Most of our people are low wage earners. We inherited an old building which has significant upkeep. We have two churches which support us generously and a few generous outside donors. We have one full-time elder. I and some others have housing in our two annexes or subsidy. We have great ministry, both here and abroad through contacts with immigrants in our church.

Bi-vocational ministry will be necessary for some. I’ve had full-time ministry offers. I’m not interested (yet). Much of it is the demographics. I became a certified D & A therapist and clinical supervisor. Several years was in the prison system. I’m now part-time. My wife works part-time. I have flexibility to travel overseas to teach a couple times a year. Sometimes I’d rather be full-time. At 63 I don’t think retirement but might be interested in semi-retirement in ministry.

I say to younger men. Get some skills or education undergrad to support your family. Go to seminary for your theological studies.Whether you need to be bi-vocational depends partly on where you are. Since you don’t know where you’ll be, have a B plan. Start saving something early on. Trust the Lord. He is faithful. Learn contentment, then learn it again and again.

[Paul J. Scharf]

Also, would you enjoy going to see a bi-vocational doctor, lawyer, auto mechanic, etc.?

[Paul J. Scharf]

Tyler,

I agree that a plurality of elders is Biblically acceptable. Where is it mandated? More specifically, where are two elders mandated?

I have to say that I wildly disagree with your assessment that two part-time pastors who are bi-vocational is the way to go, over one full-time pastor. If the one full-timer is spending his days watching reruns, well, then…. But if he is a responsible, professional, growing minister, I see zero advantage in replacing him with two part-timers who have other interests, other burdens and other concerns—especially in a mid-size or larger church.

I think Tyler is referring to a plurality of elders and doesn’t actually mean a duality is the Biblical mandate. There may be no mandate or command for more than one pastor in a given church, but the overwhelming expectation is for churches to have more than one. Nowhere that I know of, is there one place in Scripture where a single pastor is mentioned at any of the apostolic era churches. The argument for the “Angel” of the churches in Revelation is a wobbler.

The advantage I would see with having two part time elders over one full time elder, especially over a larger church would be these:

1. Shared burden of responsibility. The rising and falling of the success of the church doesn’t have to depend on his leadership alone. Unless he is just super talented at everything, which is what a lot of churches expect of their pastors.

2. Differing giftedness to compliment the lesser gifting of the other (one is more of a prophet/preacher/teacher; the other is more of a priest/pastor/counselor or the other is more of a king/overseer/organizer). When you have one gifted pastor teacher, but he is not good at overseeing and managing the church’s assets, resources, volunteers, etc…the glaring weakness of his lack of skill will become a focal point of criticism and his own discouragement.

3. Accountability. Even if one is full time and the other is part time, there is still another equal to be accountable to.

So, I’d rather have a plurality of part timers than one full time pastor. If I could have had another part time pastor pulling with me and I would have kept my job that I gave up to be a full time pastor, I think our church would have done better than it did under my sole leadership.

William wrote:

So, I’d rather have a plurality of part timers than one full time pastor.

Agreed. That’s how strongly I feel about this. Acts doesn’t show us any example of a solo, full-time pastor To be sure, we can quibble about “first among equals” and all that jazz, but the point remains. One guy can’t do it all, isn’t smart enough to do it all, talented enough to do it all, or have enough time to do it all. A team approach is better, and it’s actually an example we see in the NT.

And, let me be personal. As Steve said, we’ve all been shaped by our experiences. I’ve been shaped by mine; a whole constellation of experiences and contexts that make me who I am. I don’t have ill will towards someone who prefers the “one pastor against the world” model. None at all. I’ve just seen what it can do to someone, and I’ll never do it again. I think that’s why the NT shows us a team approach. Contexts are different, and every church situation is different.

I’m just saying that, when you add the example from Acts of dual-elders + the fact that churches and budgets are growing ever smaller = bi-vocational is going to be the wave of the future. Young men should prepare for this eventuality by obtaining a trade or degree that will help them earn a living as they pastor. Let’s not put our heads in the sand about the practical realities of the average American church. Your budget is shrinking, and they can’t pay you much. It’s not gonna get better.

Look at our culture. People have found out that they don’t need to pretend to be Christians anymore. Cultural Christianity is gone, even if it’s still hanging on in the MidWest. People who just want to be altruistic are finding out they don’t have to go to church to accomplish this!

Your own experiences might give lie to my own. Just consider it, is all I’m saying.

[TylerR]

William wrote:

So, I’d rather have a plurality of part timers than one full time pastor.

Agreed. That’s how strongly I feel about this. Acts doesn’t show us any example of a solo, full-time pastor To be sure, we can quibble about “first among equals” and all that jazz, but the point remains. One guy can’t do it all, isn’t smart enough to do it all, talented enough to do it all, or have enough time to do it all. A team approach is better, and it’s actually an example we see in the NT.

And, let me be personal. As Steve said, we’ve all been shaped by our experiences. I’ve been shaped by mine; a whole constellation of experiences and contexts that make me who I am. I don’t have ill will towards someone who prefers the “one pastor against the world” model. None at all. I’ve just seen what it can do to someone, and I’ll never do it again. I think that’s why the NT shows us a team approach. Contexts are different, and every church situation is different.

I’m just saying that, when you add the example from Acts of dual-elders + the fact that churches and budgets are growing ever smaller = bi-vocational is going to be the wave of the future. Young men should prepare for this eventuality by obtaining a trade or degree that will help them earn a living as they pastor. Let’s not put our heads in the sand about the practical realities of the average American church. Your budget is shrinking, and they can’t pay you much. It’s not gonna get better.

Look at our culture. People have found out that they don’t need to pretend to be Christians anymore. Cultural Christianity is gone, even if it’s still hanging on in the MidWest. People who just want to be altruistic are finding out they don’t have to go to church to accomplish this!

Your own experiences might give lie to my own. Just consider it, is all I’m saying.

There are certainly regions in the US with a plethora of churches which are capable of supporting a full-time or plural full-time pastors. Whether pastors will need to be bi-vocational depends on many factors. Whether a church should have plurality of elders, bi- voc or otherwise, in my mind is without questions. I’ve been a solo pastor. I’ve served under a solo pastor. Never again (if I can help it)! We have a plurality of elders but we do have a lead elder who is “first among equals in providing leadership; one among equals in decision-making.”

Earlier, someone postulated that a church of 100, with 25 families of 4 members each, could not be expected to support a pastor full time with decent salary and benefits. I’m trying to figure this one out. Take the average income and benefits of those 25 families as a reasonable support level for the pastor. If the church members are tithing (or giving the equivalent), the pastor’s support should require about 40% of the church’s income. (The giving of ten families.) That leaves about 60% for other church expenses. Why is that out of reach?

On paper that looks great, but a church of 100 = 25 families of 4 tithing families is really a church at 300-400. The other 300 are non tithing members, regular and semi regular attenders, visitors, singles & teenagers. Also add to this the families that will be moving and needing to be replaced every year, and the families who are going to leave for other churches because they don’t like yours for some reason. All of a sudden 25 tithing household incomes becomes a very fragile and delicate thing to keep intact.

When it comes to finances some churches look at their membership in terms of “giving units”. For example a church of 50 members may consist of 20 member couples and 10 single adult members. Of those 15 of the couples are regular “giving units” and 3 of the singles are regular “giving units” giving a total 18 “giving units” on which to base a budget.

Reality - not every Christian “tithes”

• Maybe they should or maybe not but …
• Some are so broke that $ 5 bucks a week is a sacrifice
• Some very indebted … others overextended

Additionally not every church situation is the same. 3 I know well in Minnesota:

1. Nice building on 2 acres in suburb. Debt free an pays pastor very well (I’ve heard over $ 80K). It’s a small church but has wealth in the great property (a relative is a member so I have knowledge of its story)
2. A church plant not more than 10 m away from #1. Same number of people and same level of income (just a bit less). Has no property and is unable to pay a pastor
3. Further W by 100 miles. Church w great property and no debt but less than 20 people. Unable to pay a pastor

Where I stand on several issues (just so you know - if you care):

• Fully paid bishops (to use the 1 Tim 3 term) is the ideal and should be the goal of churches: 1 Timothy 5:17-18 and 1 Corinthians 9:14
• Plurality of elders if there are qualified men