“There are few decisions that a young pastor or pastoral couple make that are more important than the attitude toward money. One should as early as possible determine the top income one would ever want or strive to have. Of course there has to be a degree of flexibility in such a decision, but the question of money and the dangers it poses should be kept under the closest scrutiny. Otherwise the desire ineluctably grows, avarice feeds upon itself, and one ends up as the victim of an appetite that is in fact insatiable and consumes by worry, guilt, and discontent in the hours and days that were once consecrated to ministry. It is not simply a matter of desire and avarice. The habits of a way of life become entrenched without our knowing it, and soon we discover that we have acquired all kinds of “needs” that can only be fed by more money.”
– Richard John Neuhaus, Freedom for Ministry
I came across this paragraph a few months back in a book that a friend recommended I read during my first year of ministry–Richard John Neuhaus’ Freedom for Ministry. The line in bold about one’s top income has haunted me ever since.
I’ve thought about the idea of setting a “top income” alot during the last few weeks–the time of the year when United Methodist pastors are up for appointment to different churches. In the itinerant model of ministry that the United Methodist Church (UMC) operates from, pastoral changes are ideally done so that the Church can best live out its mission: to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.
However, as I’ve talked to friends in my own conference and throughout the country, a common concern is that the salary of a pastor plays too large of a role in the process of determining what church one serves.
Finding a solution to this problem at a denominational level is very complicated, and I’ve yet to hear many compelling ideas. Yet, Neuhaus’ quote reminds me that each pastor has the ability to be a part of the solution now.
What if pastors stopped striving to be at one of the “best” churches that could pay one of the largest salaries in their conference?
What if a pastor determined their “top income” and told their Bishop and District Superintendent that they were willing to go anywhere above this number–even if it meant a drastic pay cut?
What if a pastor was appointed to a church with a larger salary than their “top income” and then gave all the extra money away?
What if we as pastors encouraged everyone in our church to determine their top income as well?
All of these things might just help to reform our denomination, free us from our slavery to money, and enhance our witness to the good news of Jesus in this world.
Have you thought about setting a “top income”?
Do you have any ideas on how to reduce the prominence of salary in appointments?
———
If you’ve enjoyed this post, please feel free to subscribe to my email list so that you receive all of the latest content from the site:
You raise a really challenging consideration. I dare say my top salary would most likely always be “just a little bit more.” What would be a good maximum salary? I always felt a clergy person should never make more than a bishop’s salary. I don’t know if salary is the real question or how we use our finances to give God the glory in our living and ministry.
Interesting thoughts. Money is a huge issue, surely a place where idolotry can easily arise. A place where churches sometimes seek to control. A place where pastors can feel controlled or controlling. Too much of our self worth can be tied up in what we do and how much we make (not a biblical concept).
What if a fair salary was set (not sure how this would be determined) then local churches sent money into a conference fund and all clergy were paid from this, instead of fully by the local church? Sort of like bishops are paid. Then the pay thing would not be THE big issue, but gifts of the pastor and need of the church would .
I travel a good bit and hear horror stories of our issues of religious control. I know of churches that usually damage the pastors who are sent to serve them due to issues of control, lack f honor, and un-love. My point? There is lots of dysfunction in the system. The money thing is a symptom. What are the ROOT issues bearing this fruit?
Janet, your idea about having a conference-paid salary is one that I believe the British Methodist Church currently uses. There, pastors receive compensation based on years in ministry and not on the size of the church. In our context, many are hesitant about this idea because we still have guaranteed appointments. Many churches and pastors don’t want their money being split among people that the denomination is unable to get rid of due to our current system.
I believe the root of many of our problems is a lack of trust across the connection–people don’t trust that decisions are being made with the right motives, people don’t trust that other pastors are doing faithful ministry, people don’t trust that they’re going to receive the pastor they need, etc. How do we begin to restore trust? That’s a good and difficult question. On the pastor side of things, I think the first step is for clergy to build relationships with one another rather than assuming the worst of people on the cabinet and on other side of the conference.
There is a paragraph in our BOD that allows annual conferences to adopt such a system. However, the judicial council has ruled that that paragraph violates the principle that ONLY a local church may set the pastor’s salary. I don’t have a new BOD, but the defunct paragraph was in the 2012 Discipline. It may still be there if no one bothered to write a petition to remove it.
I have not considered or ever been advised to set a “top income,” but have always been told to never take a pay cut, always go up. That has never set well with me. I worried at first that I was merely a young, naive pastor and that it would eventually make sense to me. There have been others who have encouraged me otherwise.
Demanding I make a certain amount of money or be considered for a particular type of congregation based on its ability to pay seems to go against the nature of the calling we have from God. As long as Christ is who/what we preach, us preachers find that our contentment, whether we serve churches in need or with plenty, is Christ.
Thanks for the post. Stay blessed…john
Reminds me of a clergy friend who recently said, “I want to go where I’m needed–not where I can be afforded.”
I still wonder though of this is easier to say as young, single clergy without children. Does it get more complicated when you have others to take care of. Is it that the temptation gets greater as we age or if there are just more variables….
Good things to be mindful of no matter what!!
I also think this is an easy thing to say when you are pastoring smaller churches. The idea that pay should be based on years in ministry is absurd. There is a huge difference between pastoring a church of 100 and pastoring a church of 3,000. Under your idea the pastor of the church of 100 would be paid more because he’s been a pastor for 40 years and the pastor of the 3,000 in attendance church would be paid less because he’s only been pastoring for 20 years. I am not saying money should be the driving force behind appointments but to deny the amount of work and sacrifice that goes into pastoring a church of 3,000 is just wrong.
Good point. That issue, among others (variable cost of living, etc.) is another reason I don’t anticipate “equitable pay” ever occurring across the connection.
(Not entirely on topic, but… a note.)
I’m VERY glad we have a conference minimum salary. I have several friends from other churches that from denominations where congregations directly hire their clergy. For those just starting out, especially the unmarried ones, the expectation among churches that will consider them is that they’ll take on a second job in order to make it.
My impression from one who’d interviewed with as many as a dozen churches is that all but one assumed he’d take a job as a substitute teacher or something similar to pay his expenses.
I’m glad that after four years of seminary I am not entering ministry while immediately looking for a second job!
I’m thankful too!
What if a pastor decides he wants to make the top income in the conference (or let’s say the pastor sets his salary at $100,00) and works to build his church to make that income?
What if the SPRC sets out an incentive plan with the appointed clergy that if they grow in 2013 by 50 consistent giving units (or some other kind of incentive) that they would increase his salary by X in 2014? and do it again in the following years?
This is the way the real world work? Why must the church be different?
Since churches currently set salaries, isn’t it possible for many churches to work this way already?
It seems to me that as churches grow they tend to give their pastor a salary increase like you mentioned above–although maybe not with specific metrics. Issues only arise if the church is growing yet the church doesn’t want to increase the pastor’s salary.
If salaries are awarded based on numerical growth, the pastor and church must be careful and continually ask themselves, “Are we working hard to make disciples or are we working hard to make giving units?” Such a system also creates incentives for pastors to skip over the poor and others who may not be able to give as much.
Johnathan, you have identified one of the KEY spiritual and structural problems in the American United Methodist Church. We are no longer a church in ministry with the poor, standing in solidarity with them. We have large, wealthy congregations with rich pastors who can do a lot of good things for the poor. We also have numerous struggling, declining congregations that cannot afford to pay a full-time pastor or provide effective ministries to their neighborhood.
In our church, money and power obviously go hand-in-hand; and in light of the Gospel we are supposed to be preaching, this is hypocritical and even shameful.
I drafted a petition to the 2012 General Conference that addressed this issue. I tried to apply the Biblical standard of pastoral compensation found in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 to our church. My petition did not pass, but it did receive strong support from central conferences. Some delegates from Africa are planning to draft their own, similar petition for GC 2016.
One of the problems with my petition is that the Judicial Council has made it clear in numerous rulings that ONLY the local church has the authority to set the pastor’s salary. The annual conference may not cap it. This means that a local church with money can essentially buy the pastor they want. This distorts the integrity of our itinerant system. And it leads to grossly inequitable salaries in our church. Pastors who are committed to work WITH the poor as they live simply and modestly are not generally respected.
Here is a link to a blog post I wrote that touches on this same subject. You can also follow a link to read the blog post about my defunct petition to General Conference.
http://hollyboardman.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/the-choice-to-be-in-the-middle-class/
I honestly believe that the high salaries some of our clergy receive are a major problem in our church. I would respect any pastor who set an upper salary limit early in his or her career (like Wesley did). I also believe that the pastor who does this should distribute any excess money over that limit DIRECTLY to the poor as Wesley did. Giving it to the church would be ultimately self-serving for a pastor.
I like your idea of making such a commitment as a young pastor. I would suggest that you decide to set the upper limit at twice whatever the minimum salary of your conference is (based on 1 Timothy 5:17-18) It can certainly be voluntary, and it would be a badly needed witness to our church.
Earn all you can. Save all you can. Give all you can.
Ineffective pastors make more than they are worth. I say we focus on winning souls and not on what some pastors make. I frankly don’t care what a pastor of a mega-church makes. I pray he/she is giving away a large percentage but that’s between God and him/her. Our goal is to reach the lost. Let’s focus on that.
Tim, you have totally misunderstood Wesley as you quote him. Please read the comments on the link to my blog post above.
Also, I’d like to say that the most fruitful time of my ministry in terms of soul-winning was near the end of my active ministry when I was appointed to serve as the pastor to small, struggling declining churches. By current metrical standards, I was ineffective. Yet even as I closed a congregation, I baptized 4 adult converts who met Jesus. I saw people healed and saved in that context, whereas I have rare see that sort of sign of the kingdom in the large mega-church I have been attending for the last 10 years as a retired pastor.
Ministry with the poor is often viewed as ineffective in the eyes of our church hierarchy. Those on the top of the compensation ladder often seem to have a very worldly viewpoint.
Please tell me how I misunderstood Wesley. He was one of the wealthiest men of his day. Yes, he gave away most of it but he made a lot of money. That is really what is at the heart of this whole dialogue. Are pastors tithing or giving away a large percentage of their income. I think we should focus on other things. Unless you have pastored a large church you have no idea the time and energy and sacrifice that goes into it.
Second, if you are baptizing people then you are not ineffective. We have churches (districts) that have not had a profession of faith in decades. That is what I call ineffective. I can’t speak to the mega-church you attend but I grew up in a mega-church that continually led the conference in professions of faith.
As I understand what the author is saying, he is not so much criticizing churches for being willing to pay more as much as the way that salaries shape the appointment process. Our focus on (love of?) money, keeps us from best matching churches/locations with pastors who have gifts and graces for that context of ministry.
In other words, it could be that the way we think about salaries and appointments limits our vision making it difficult to “focus on” making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world– which certainly includes “reaching the lost,” but also includes the sanctification and continued transformation of those who have already been “found.”
I am grateful for the call to holiness as it relates to finances that this post encourages for pastors and for the UMC system in the US.
I think high minded platitudes make little difference. Simple economics can be applied. Supply and demand is the issue. We have many pastors in our connection. Churches have been told for generations that the more they can pay the better the pastor they will receive. I think pastors should simply go where they are sent and keep their opinions to themselves. It is not a pastors issue. The Cabinet appoints and the church sets the salary! To advocate any other idea speaks to how we are breaking the system. If we trust the Cabinet and obey our ordination then this is a non issue.
Geoff,
From my conversations with clergy, I know of very few who would accept an appointment from the cabinet with a substantial pay decrease. The cabinet seems to rarely appointment people down in pay because they know the pushback that would come.