Six Years On

I am curious if anyone has a history of pastoral compensation throughout the centuries. No doubt many churches do a good job of compensating their pastors, but many do not. Is this a recent problem? BTW, the ideal is for churches to compensate the pastor, but if they are not able to or refuse to, then the pastor should at least have the option to be be bi-vocational so that he can take care of his family. I can say that when we stepped out in faith and were making just below the poverty level plus the parsonage (we paid our own utilities) God provided and all our bills were paid. Part of that provision came through working during one of my 2 vacation weeks, but there wasn’t time to have a bi-vocational job since I preached 4-5 times each week. I must say, that I have a much more relaxing schedule now that I am bi-vocational and preach Sunday morning, and then simply lead a Bible study discussion group on Mondays. Further, I no longer feel guilty when I go to change the toilet paper roll because I felt like I had used too much and was being wasteful (that is how tight our budget was). I also feel like I have more time to fellowship with the people and to meet new people than I did in the other model. Although we still have to be careful with our expenses, we can also afford to go out to eat now and then and that helps us to meet more people as well.

I recall that in the 50’s and 60’s the pastors I knew were fulltime and provided with a parsonage. Medical costs were considerably lower. For example, child birth with a 4 day hospital stay in 1956 was $64. The move away from parsonages seems to have started in the late 70’s. Churches were glad to get out of the costs of housing and encouraged the pastor to own his own home. The problem arose when salaries failed to keep pace with housing and insurance costs and pastors didn’t stay in one place long enough to build up equity.

Add to this the fact that our fundamental churches have generally stagnant and aging memberships and it’s hard to increase the pastor’s salary when church income is unchanged or shrinking.

Great question by JD. With room for variance, I’d guess it was pretty much poverty prior to Constantine (just like the rest off the church, though), became middle class from Constantine through the Reformation (even upper class—read the 95 Theses and other documents about Rome if you doubt this), was again poverty level in the early Reformation, but then became a profession as state Protestant churches got going (the sinecure for the lazy younger son of the noble family, really), and then with the Puritans once again became poverty level, poverty level for the circuit riders of the Methodists and Baptists (why you will find a Methodist or Baptist church, or both, even in most small towns, really), and then oscillating between poverty and the middle class as those churches became established.

That noted, I’d suggest that the target is not specifically the income of a professional, but rather a level off support that will allow him to not worry about his next meal or the cost of medical care—really that will allow him to be a man of the Word and prayer. As others have noted, this can be hard in some areas, but in some established areas, I would dare suggest churches ought to consider merging with others so that they can share a shepherd who actually can do the office of the pastor.

[Ron Bean]

I recall that in the 50’s and 60’s the pastors I knew were fulltime and provided with a parsonage. Medical costs were considerably lower. For example, child birth with a 4 day hospital stay in 1956 was $64. The move away from parsonages seems to have started in the late 70’s. Churches were glad to get out of the costs of housing and encouraged the pastor to own his own home. The problem arose when salaries failed to keep pace with housing and insurance costs and pastors didn’t stay in one place long enough to build up equity.

Add to this the fact that our fundamental churches have generally stagnant and aging memberships and it’s hard to increase the pastor’s salary when church income is unchanged or shrinking.

Your comment hits on another problem with parsonages: Churches frequently lower the pastor’s salary significantly if they are providing a parsonage and make no provision for a retirement plan or other savings options for the pastor. The result is that a pastor can stay at a church for 20 years and then if he moves he has zero equity and no savings. If a parsonage is part of the salary package, then there must also be some form of retirement contribution to make up for the fact that the pastor will not be able to build equity in his own house.

CA Watson, I am praying for you. That’s a near impossible situation to be in and I feel for you and your family, especially as someone whose family has serious and chronic medical conditions.

That being said, I have my own question that I’d like an answer to. I have to admit that I am…nonplussed…at the lack of men willing to minister in difficult or part-time environments. I know that they are not the ideal situation, but if you want to minister and think that you are called by God, then why not be willing to work in any field that God puts you in? If you’re called to pastor, truly called to preach and pastor in the sense of 1 Corinthians 9:16, then the opportunity to pastor ought to trump the difficult environments that God puts some of us in. That being said, I fully get the difference between foolishness and necessity.

A few years ago, the local ABC-USA Baptist church in my town lost their pastor. I had visited once or twice as it was much closer to my home than where we usually attended, and they knew I had seminary training. They asked me to shepherd them on a part time basis, and I told them that I was going to bring and preach the orthodox Christian gospel, not the ecumenical pablum that the ABC-USA advocates for their churches. We also frankly discussed the possibility of withdrawing from the ABC-USA entirely before I went. They decided that it was better to have a part-time pastor than to not have one (and I wasn’t prepared to leave them to the tender mercies of the local female Episcopalian in town instead, who was Plan B). They paid me a little bit, but it wasn’t even really about the money for me - it was about meeting a spiritual need, although I did eventually buckle down and take the salary they offered.

I didn’t even need to think about it. There was a group of people looking for a pastor, and it wouldn’t have mattered to me if they were ABC-USA Baptists or not. Surely other men out there that have such a burning call that they would be willing to work and try to make a go of it in an environment like that. Or maybe we need a mission board for churches that are too small to have a full time pastor. I don’t know.

In any case, if anyone is looking for such an environment, please let me know. A church in my area is about 50 people and can offer a parsonage and small salary, but the successful candidate will almost certainly have to tent-make for a while.

I agree that one of the biggest obstacles for bi-vo pastors is that they don’t have anything else they can do. I was fortunate in that I got a job in retail and was valuable enough so that I could get at least Sunday mornings off. ( i told HR that if they could give the Muslims evenings off during Ramadan they could reciprocate by giving me Sundays.)

Having a vocational skill that can flex around ministerial obligations and provide benefits is ideal.

BTW, I filled an empty pulpit today in a small church that needs a bi-vo pastor. I explained to some of the men that a bi-vo pastor probably wouldn’t be able to handle their current SS/AM/PM/Wednesday night schedule.

My wife and I have been working on this problem for more than a year - so when I say that we have thought through all of the possibilities (including if my wife had lost the baby - we wouldn’t be looking to leave, or a life-insurance payout in case one of us had died), then we wouldn’t need to leave. The problem isn’t salary. We can live on very little, and make a bit here and there to cover the gaps where needed. The problem is safe (and adequate) housing for our family. My request for safe housing is reasonable (I think) - I want a place where my wife (and I) aren’t anxious about the kids touching the windows (more than half of which are cracked, and in one place the glass is missing, and that is also where the lead has been found). I want a back door that I don’t have to slam to close - where the window pane is not held in by duct tape. I want a house where the insulation is not a fire hazard due to ancient (1920s) knob-and-tube wiring. I’m asking for basic safety for my family. Plus a myriad of other problems exist.

I also don’t have a problem working, if necessary. We considered sending me to tech school for a year to learn a trade (probably HVAC). But this doesn’t solve the immediate need for housing. There are no rentals available in town. We are not in a position to purchase (even if I got a job with extra income). The nearest available rentals are 20-25 miles away, and are priced out of range for my family - even if I got a decent paying job (we would need 3 bedrooms - so a minimum of 1200 per month just on rent, not on utilities).

I’m willing to work in difficult environments. I do presently and I have in the past. But my children’s health and safety are a serious factor of concern. And when you and your wife sit up for hours at night, unable to sleep because of worry about housing - you know that something has to change. And so it is possible that God has provided - the night before the baby was born, the church called and asked us to candidate.

I just discovered that my dad has had much of his support ended or reduced since he retired two summers ago. His wife, who was a single missionary for 40 years has had much of her support ended or reduced. The amount they still receive is shameful. At 75 years old, my dad is planning on becoming an Uber driver to make ends meet. Later today, I’m going to help him get his very first smart phone so that he can drive for Uber.

My dad, attempting to be gracious and defend his “friends,” insists that it’s his fault since he never used the word “retired.”

If pastors want to insist on being independent (not affiliated with the SBC, for example), and they expect fundamentalist missionaries to operate accordingly, then fundamentalist churches should view missionary support as a lifetime commitment.

Sometimes, it’s very difficult for me to find the desire to defend fundamentalism. To that end, I’m going to stop typing so that I don’t type something out of my current anger.

John, knowing that you’re in the SBC, do you see things as any better there, seeing at least “we” usually see the SBC as being more “evangelical” than “fundamental”?

The main thing I can say to “defend” this is to remember a lot of people in the “secular” sector who have lost their retirement (former employees of Foxboro, Bethlehem Steel, and a bunch of other companies) because the companies funded their pension funds with company IOUs that became worthless when the companies went bankrupt. (my dad worked for Foxboro) The main thing the GM/Chrysler/UAW bailout achieved was that UAW pensioners wouldn’t get the same treatment, for reference.

(so we fundamentalists are no worse than unethical skunks in corporate life, I guess….)

Word to the wise: don’t trust pension systems, private or public, any further than you can throw those running it. Assume that you are closer to Twiggy than Vasily Alekseev, of course, when you think of this.

I would have loved to have saved for retirement but I suspect like John’s father, I found it couldn’t be done when living paycheck to paycheck.

[John E.]

If pastors want to insist on being independent (not affiliated with the SBC, for example), and they expect fundamentalist missionaries to operate accordingly, then fundamentalist churches should view missionary support as a lifetime commitment.

In reference to missionaries, yes, I believe that the IMB offers advantages that are really difficult for independent fundamentalists to replicate.

We are stateside church planting missionaries with Continental Baptist Missions. As we are calculating our needed support level we are required by our agency to include a certain level for retirement and then we have to send in yearly reports verifying that we are contributing. If we are not at full support, then the retirement requirement is reduced accordingly. Since I am bi-vocational and running my own small business, I asked if my investment in machinery and tools could be counted as my retirement contribution. Our mission was so concerned that retirement be set aside, that they wanted us to make a separate retirement contribution. Of course since it is a percentage of our actual support, I can still build some retirement nest egg through the bi-vocational side through investment in the business. I really respect our mission agency’s insistence that there be something set aside for retirement. Although their requirement is actually fairly small, they are at least raising the issue and making a point to their missionaries and the supporting churches and individuals that retirement needs to be a priority.