Thread: Money and the Church Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027759
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I don't get it. I've been a church treasurer, my husband is one now and we just don't understand the priorities of either of our churches financial decisions.
My Lutheran church (about 30 regular members) has recently hired the local Episcopalian priest (also about 30 members) to be our part time pastor. She will conduct our service at 9:00 and theirs at 10:30. She earns around $80,000 annual income from the Episcopalians plus very expensive health care, parsonage, utilities, pension, etc. Now she will get an additional $40,000 from us.
This is a small town where the average income is just over $20,000. Frankly, I'm having trouble liking her because I can't help thinking she's greedy.
In an effort to get to know and like her better, I just started a mid-week Bible study class with her. Fourteen of us met for the first time and she passed out the books we will use and told us we would need to pay ten dollars each for them. Fine, I guess, but why doesn't the church cover little costs like this under outreach or education?
Then she said that if anyone needed help paying for the book to see her and she would apply for a "scholarship," for them. What? I don't have anywhere near her income but I would gladly have paid for everyone's books rather than hear that. Why not say that there was an envelope by the books, contribute if you want, otherwise, never mind? We have a few little old ladies in the group who are living on social security and the ten dollars might be a pinch for them, but I'm sure they would hesitate to apply for a scholarship to be brooded over by the finance committee for ten lousy dollars.
This church contributes a paltry $100 per month to the local food and clothing pantry. My husband's church can't even come up with that much but a few years ago they spent $60,000 so they could ruin the sanctuary with large screen TVs and a new sound system.
Is it just me, or are these priorities screwed up?
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
Those priorities are a little screwed up, but then I would say that.
I would probably say though that your new minister would probably argue that ruining/improving the sanctuary with a bloody great plasma screen is actually a benefit to the community, because outreach, or because feeding the congregation, or something.
I think what I am saying is that screwed up priorities often get explained away with spiritual terms. What does your new pastor consider to be the justification for the flatscreen?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
She will conduct our service at 9:00 and theirs at 10:30. She earns around $80,000 annual income from the Episcopalians plus very expensive health care, parsonage, utilities, pension, etc. Now she will get an additional $40,000 from us.
If she is now part-time in both churches, why is she still getting the full Episcopalian whack as well as your money? Surely your contribution should be paid into Diocesan funds or count as part of her stipend?
Whether she's getting too much is something I can't judge - though I can sense your ire. Presumably these rates are fixed nationally, or something.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
$40,000/30 means that each member of your congregation has committed themselves to paying over $1,000 per year just to have this particular pastor, in addition to maintaining the church itself, paying anyone else. Presumably charities come second.
It's not a choice I would have made. But presumably this was a communal/collective decision?
[ 11. September 2014, 14:23: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
It may also be that the $80K includes the parsonage, health care and other benefits, rather than being in addition. This is quite common at least in US churches-- to report not the salary of the pastor, but the total cost to the church. Since in every other field salaries are reported separately from benefits, this leads to a lot of unnecessary misunderstanding/ resentment. At the least, I would assume that $80K is "base + housing" (i.e. includes cost of parsonage) as is usual.
Church budgets are always messy, and difficult. We all have different priorities, and there is never enough to do every good thing we want to do. Church budgeting always always ends up weighing a number of good things to find the "best thing" to focus one's resources on w/o undermining the overall ministry. I find myself, not for the first time, in a similar place, where we are embarking on an expensive remodeling project that appears to me unnecessary, while other priorities (homeless shelter, etc) go unfunded. Sooner or later, this is going to happen to all of us.
If we allow it, this can cause us to become bitter and hardened. At it's worst it can lead to manipulative end-runs where folks stop giving to the general budget and write designated checks to their pet projects instead. I've seen that in a church I've served at, and it's deadly.
So I think the key is not to get bogged down so much in griping about why we're funding Good Thing A and not Good Thing B. Rather, the key is to focus on the process. Does your budgeting process allow for input from diverse members of the congregation? Are all the interests represented/ have a voice? Is there transparency, not only in the end result, but in the process itself? Is there a clear connection between the things that are funded and the core written priorities/ mission statement of the church? Most of all, is it discernably prayerful-- can you trust the people making the decision, and particularly trust the spiritual practices that surrounded the process?
When those things are in place, differences of opinion will still happen of course. We will always have differing priorities and perspectives on how money should be spent. But when we trust the leaders who are making those decisions and the process we're using, it's much easier to chalk that up to just the diverse perspectives that make up a diverse body.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
My Lutheran church (about 30 regular members) has recently hired the local Episcopalian priest (also about 30 members) to be our part time pastor. She will conduct our service at 9:00 and theirs at 10:30. She earns around $80,000 annual income from the Episcopalians plus very expensive health care, parsonage, utilities, pension, etc. Now she will get an additional $40,000 from us.
From what little I know about Episcopal salaries, are you that's not a total package of $80K including those benefits, rather than $80K plus benefits? And what is "very expensive healthcare" exactly? Have you seen the documents of her coverage?
I also can't tell if she is your church's only pastor at the moment. If so then $40k for her services part-time is still less than you'd pay to get someone who is based in your church. So it might be a cost-savings to your church even if it means she is being paid very well with her total compensation.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Yes, who does fix stipends in TEC? These seem crazy sums to me. The $40,000 that you're paying as a part-time rate is I think about £25,000, which is roughly an incumbent's (Rector's) full-time annual stipend in the CofE. Her total of $120,000 is just slightly lower than what the Archbishop of Canterbury gets (£76280/c $124,000)! (NB these figures do not include housing costs and as you probably know healthcare insurance doesn't usually come into it over here.)
[ 11. September 2014, 14:32: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Like everyone else is saying, do double-check what exactly is covered by the figures you're mentioning. If some of this goes to housing, insurance, various overhead costs, she could be actually receiving a helluva lot less than it looks like. (See: my salary at my old job, which was actually peanuts and shriveled ones at that, but on paper looked like coconuts)
Also take into account the cost of living/housing wherever you are from--$40,000 would be very respectable indeed in some parts of the US and desperately impoverished in others.
When in doubt, try desperately (ask God's help) to put the best construction on it. Bitterness is a dangerous thing, as I have reason to know. Mr Lamb receives NO salary.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
There is no central authority fixing stipends in TEC. Nor does the diocese necessarily fix stipends. In my diocese, there are guidelines for compensation, but I'm not sure if there are any consequences for not following them. FWIW, the guidelines in my diocese, are, I believe, to peg the stipends to the prevailing compensation for educators in each church's community -- I believe, for the principals of the local schools. That's for the salary part alone; housing, insurance, pension contributions etc. are added to that.
Whether or not the diocese has guidelines, in my experience the rector's compensation is negotiated with and fixed by the individual church, or rather its vestry.
As cliffdweller says, it is very possible that the $80,000 reported includes housing, insurance, pension contributions and whatever other non-salary benefits are included in the rector's compensation. So I wouldn't compare it to the ABofC so readily.
[ETA: although Twilight does spell out that its $80,000 plus the other benefits. Twilight, are you sure its "plus" and not "including"?]
[ 11. September 2014, 14:47: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
I've found this online from the 2012 Church Compensation Report
quote:
What does compensation include?
For clergy, this is the assessable compensation reported to the Church Pension Fund and includes, but is not limited to, cash salary, utilities, payments made to Social Security, and housing, either in the form of a housing allowance or, if a rectory is provided, as 30% of salary. Compensation also includes such items as contributions to individual retirement accounts, cash gifts to clergy, and the payment of school fees for clergy children. This compensation amount does not include the pension payments made to the Pension Fund or any other standard employee benefit.
So if her compensation is reported as $80K it seems it would refer to the entire package and not just the cash salary.
You can also check your diocese on page 17 to see if she's being paid out of proportion.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, who does fix stipends in TEC? These seem crazy sums to me. The $40,000 that you're paying as a part-time rate is I think about £25,000, which is roughly an incumbent's (Rector's) full-time annual stipend in the CofE. Her total of $120,000 is just slightly lower than what the Archbishop of Canterbury gets (£76280/c $124,000)! (NB these figures do not include housing costs and as you probably know healthcare insurance doesn't usually come into it over here.)
In the Baptist Union of Great Britain minimum stipend is £21k ish. We pay much more personally into our pension scheme than other denominations too.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Off the salary for just a moment--
One reason I've heard for charging for books in Bible study is that this seems to increase the commitment of the study members to actually using them and showing up. For some reason there is a human tendency to treat free-to-me things as of little value. In fact, some missions have instituted small charges for precisely this reason, much against their will. It's freaking frustrating.
Now it may be that the members of your Bible study are steady, faithful people who wouldn't dream of blowing off the sessions regardless of whether they'd invested in the book or not. But your new pastor doesn't know that, does she? not yet.
As for a scholarship fund--I think these are fine, but when it's small amounts it really ought to be left to pastor's discretion and not scrutinized by the church council or whatever. $10 is not going to make or break the church budget, but the potential embarrassment of having one's poverty known is Not Good.
We mostly don't participate in the 10$ breakfast, 25$ trivia night things at our host church because we can't afford them, and we are too embarrassed to ask for a scholarship. Particularly because my husband is staff. So we just don't go.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
In the Baptist Union of Great Britain minimum stipend is £21k ish. We pay much more personally into our pension scheme than other denominations too.
Yes, out of my total stipend (a little above the minimum) about 17% is taken for tax and another 15% for pension. And my church has to add another fairly significant sum to the pension fund, on top of that.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Just to add that $40,000 CDN is about right for the salary of a priest in this diocese, with the addition of housing allowance/rectory, travel expenses, employer's contributions to Canada Pension Plan, personal pension, health & other insurance, etc., but that would not add up to $80,000 expense to the church. The salary is on an agreed scale, FWIW.
And there is nothing extra for having more than one church, beyond expenses such as mileage.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, who does fix stipends in TEC?
I think each church decides. In my local TEC, during the search they fired the choir director to get more money to offer a new clergy person. (then struggled to hold a choir together.) Total package $90,000 includes $30,000 for housing meaning the clergy-person will outright own the house in just 4 years. (And pay no income taxes on the money used to buy it.)
I don't understand why I should regard someone as receiving "only $30,000 a year" instead of $90,000 when the difference between those two figures is things considered income in our jobs. We all have to use (after-tax) earnings to rent or buy a place to live, why is a place to live "in addition to income" for clergy - especially when the place is owned by the clergy and the "housing allowance" is paying off the mortgage for them?
Also, the rest of us have to fund our own (401k and IRA) retirement plans from our income, why shouldn't clergy "set aside for retirement" funds be considered part of their income?
Most of us these days have to pay for some or all of our medical insurance, plus significant copayments and deductibles, from our income. Why shouldn't theirs be considered part of their income?
I do not object to clergy being well paid if that's what a church wants to do. (Middle class mainline churches where I've lived seem to believe clergy should be paid like a CEO of a company with as many employees as the church has members).
I do object to being told they are "low paid" solely because they negotiated large parts of the "package" to be put in "not income" slots (for tax reasons), when for anyone else the income has to include those items.
$30,000 salary plus $30,000 to use towards buying a house plus $20,000 reserved for retirement plus $10,000 deluxe health insurance like no regular employee gets anymore = the equivalent salary the person would have to earn in a secular job and have the same economic lifestyle. Therefore I say this person is earning $90,000 a year, no matter what much lower figure they negotiated to show up in the "salary" slot.
(Very different system from UK on both ends. Clergy in small churches often earn minimal amounts and have to take a secular job to survive, churches over about 100 are often pretty well paid.)
[ 11. September 2014, 16:52: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I don't understand why I should regard someone as receiving "only $30,000 a year" instead of $90,000 when the difference between those two figures is things considered income in our jobs. We all have to use (after-tax) earnings to rent or buy a place to live, why is a place to live "in addition to income" for clergy - especially when the place is owned by the clergy and the "housing allowance" is paying off the mortgage for them?
Sure, but when it comes to fronting the costs for Bible study books for example, compensation that includes housing costs, healthcare, and pension contributions doesn't mean you have the cash in your bank account to pay for things like that.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
And I don't think it was particulalry being said that they were not benefits, but that it was not comparing like to like.
To say it is the equivalent to x or y you have to make sure that x and y are reported in the same way.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I missed that anyone thought the clergy person should be providing the bible study books out of their own income.
I thought the issue was whether the church decision makers were making wise decisions about how much to pay clergy. If a somewhat lower salary were reasonable to pay, the church would have money for other uses, too. Which I thought led to discussion about how much the clergy person should be considered to be paid, whether it's just the "salary" line or more.
I apologize if I misunderstood the discussion.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I think you're the only one who did understand the discussion as I intended it, Belle Ringer. I didn't think the pastor should pay for the books, I thought the church should. It's any church's financial priorities I wanted to discuss.
According to the link above the average pay for clergy in small TEC churches in this area is $56,000. As I indicated in the OP the $80,000 is actual salary, above and beyond the benefits. I agree with Belle Ringer that health care, retirement, etc. should be bought by the pastor just as the rest of us do, but in the churches I'm familiar with, the church pays for all of this, plus the parsonage with all its repairs and utilities is also paid for by the church not as an understood part of her salary.
All of this was agreed on by the discernment committee and approval was voted by the congregation, (three of us voted against.) Our Lutheran church had been using interim pastors for a few years and I think it was a case of being at the point where they were just happy to find someone willing.
This is not an area where cost of living is high. Average houses cost $110,000. It's also not a case of the congregation deciding how to spend its money between "this good thing or that good thing." Other good things don't seem to be on the table at all because all the money is going toward salary.
As for the people in the class having to pay ten dollars so they will appreciate their book more. That just seems very petty to me. They're voluntarily coming out in the middle of the week to do this class, I don't think they need the ten dollar incentive to read the book. If we're going to play those games maybe the pastor would take better care of her health if she had to pay the $8500 per year health insurance herself.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Those priorities are a little screwed up, but then I would say that.
I would probably say though that your new minister would probably argue that ruining/improving the sanctuary with a bloody great plasma screen is actually a benefit to the community, because outreach, or because feeding the congregation, or something.
I think what I am saying is that screwed up priorities often get explained away with spiritual terms. What does your new pastor consider to be the justification for the flatscreen?
The flatscreens were at my husband's UMC, not my own Lutheran. His justification was that this would update the church and make it state of the art.
I was treasurer at that church and so I know that I wrote separate checks for salary, health insurance, parsonage upkeep, retirement fund, etc. So long as I was treasurer I tried not to have an opinion about where the money was going. It was simply my job to keep the figures straight.
------------------
Lamb Chopped,
Now, at this Lutheran church I don't see the actual figures, but I think I know enough about how it all works to understand the information told to me by the discernment committee. At least enough not to misunderstand what was meant by "salary."
I don't know anyone whose net pay is as much as their gross. You were not unique in your coconuts vs peanuts situation. Even the minimum wage worker has funds taken out of their stated salary for taxes, health insurance, 401K, etc.
Leaving aside the amount this particular pastor is making, is it right that any pastor should be making four or five times what the average member of the congregation is making? The average in this area is just over $20,000.
If churches are saying that the pastor should earn the equivalent of a CEO of a company with as many employees as the church has members? No, just no. The congregation is more like the number of customers a business might have, not employees who must be continually supervised.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Twilight:
My Lutheran church (about 30 regular members) has recently hired the local Episcopalian priest (also about 30 members) to be our part time pastor. She will conduct our service at 9:00 and theirs at 10:30. She earns around $80,000 annual income from the Episcopalians plus very expensive health care, parsonage, utilities, pension, etc. Now she will get an additional $40,000 from us.
I find that very, very and I mean very hard to believe. Parsonage plus utilities counts as 1/3 of compensation. There is no way that a church with 30 people is paying a priest $120,000 and willing to share time with another congregation. Pension is 18% of stipend, housing, and social security if paid. So add another $21600 to the $120000 and that gives you $141600. Health insurance will be around $9000 even for one person. Make it a family and the cost could go up to another $20,000. Meaning the total compensation package for that priest is supposedly upwards of $150,000. Bishops of small diocese make that kind of money but not the rectors of small parishes.
With 30 people, each would need to pledge $5,0000 just to cover the priest. Pledges are measured in pledging units meaning a church with 30 people usually has far fewer pledging units. My guess is 15 to 20. So, the $5000 is more like $7,000-$10,000. Let's say the church has an endowment. If the average pledge comes out to $3,000 per pledging unit and there are 20 pledging units, then endowment must cover $90,000 just for the priests compensation package. Best financial practices suggest using no more than 5% of your endowment per year. So, the church would need a $1.8 million endowment just to make up the difference for the priests compensation package.
But...wait...there's more...
Does the parish have a building? Buildings cost money to maintain. Add on another $25,000-$35,000. Do they have music? Musician will need to get paid. Diocese will be taking around 12% of the budget as apportionment. My guess is the budget for a church that size would need be at least $300,000.
I can't imagine a vestry in their right mind spending money like that. Even if they did, I can't imagine a bishop in his or her right mind that would let a vestry do that. More than likely, the $80,000 is the total compensation which includes stipend, housing, social security, pension, health insurance, continuing ed, car allowance, and possibly other stuff. Her actual take home pay is likely closer to $45,000. And is that episcopal parish really going to let the priest pocket your $44,000 and not take any of the money towards the benefits?
But, heck, if that's really what your two churches are paying for priests, have I got a deal for you! Mrs. Mother Beeswax Altar and I are both episcopal priests. We both have theological degrees from a Lutheran university. We both have experience working with Lutheran congregations. I'm sure we can work out a deal where your two small congregations get two priests for less money than you are going to pay the one.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
My church group found the perfect solution for having to pay a preacher's salary.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by seekingsister:
From what little I know about Episcopal salaries, are you that's not a total package of $80K including those benefits, rather than $80K plus benefits? And what is "very expensive healthcare" exactly? Have you seen the documents of her coverage?
The insurance coverage is very expensive. We have a relatively small pool. The small pool contains a bunch of older people. I could save the church money and get better health insurance if we didn't have to get insurance through the diocese.
quote:
originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, who does fix stipends in TEC? These seem crazy sums to me. The $40,000 that you're paying as a part-time rate is I think about £25,000, which is roughly an incumbent's (Rector's) full-time annual stipend in the CofE. Her total of $120,000 is just slightly lower than what the Archbishop of Canterbury gets (£76280/c $124,000)! (NB these figures do not include housing costs and as you probably know healthcare insurance doesn't usually come into it over here.)
Each diocese sets minimum compensation standards. Depending on the diocese that can be anywhere from $42,000 to $65,000. However the compensation standard includes stipend, housing, and social security.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Where were you when we needed you Beeswax? I do think the parsonage was paid for many years ago, so unless it needs a new roof or something then it shouldn't be costing too much.
Both churches do have endowments so there's that and it's possible I was told wrong from the Episcopalian side, but I have the figures in writing from the Lutherans. (I thought we were going to talk church priorities and not take me to court over these figures. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
)
Sadly, in about fifty years, they will both probably be empty buildings. At the end of the day it only bothers me that our two churches seem to have so little to offer the many homeless and truly poor in our community.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
TEC pays their clergy more money and provides more generous benefits than ELCA. Frankly, the generation of clergy that oversaw a huge decline in TEC seems determined to hold on to power for as long as possible and milk the local churches for as much money as possible. The entitlement some of them feel is indeed mind blowing.
All mainline churches require an M.Div. An M.Div is a three year degree. The same mainline denominations offer very little in the way of financial aid. With your M.Div, you can do very little other than be a clergy person. Unless you believe God only calls the independently wealthy and retired to be clergy, professional clergy require a professional salary. Mrs. Mother Beeswax Altar and I have a ton of student loans. Remove the education requirements and the clergy can work for less.
Now, most mainline churches do obsess over buildings. Nice buildings cost a ton of money to maintain. My question would be why your two congregations are maintaining two separate buildings. One new building is cheaper to maintain than two older ones. How much you would make selling an old church is anybody's guess. Despite the rhetoric, most of us can't conceive of church without a nice building. Not only do we require a nice building it has to be this nice building that we are in right now.
The average church will not give a majority of its money to the local community. People do outreach because they go to church. Those who come to church to do outreach are the minority. Resources are limited. There are plusses and minuses to how we use our resources. Spend money on one priority means spending less money on another one. My advice is find a church that shares your priorities. Trying to drastically change the priorities of a church will only lead to frustration and disappointment.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Let them make tents.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Let them make tents.
Yep, and I assume that's what LeRoc was getting at a few posts upthread. (EDIT - not literally making tents, just in case that wasn't clear.)
[ 11. September 2014, 20:53: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Let them make tents.
Yep, and I assume that's what LeRoc was getting at a few posts upthread. (EDIT - not literally making tents, just in case that wasn't clear.)
Thirded. (Fourthed?)
And I say that as someone who was paid full-time by the church for the best part of a decade.
[ 11. September 2014, 20:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Yeah, if you want to change the education requirement, then fine. The church will look different. Different excites some and worries others. A different that worries more than it excites will die.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I trained for several years on a decentralised theology course run on weekends in my city.
Of course it cannot match the depth of x years seminary or whatever, but I am far from convinced that this level of academic study is a necessity for all church leadership. I had my reasons for not going to Bible college back in the day and I stand by them now. And these days there are MOOCs.
I miss the time I had for study and prayer when I was "full time", but I don't at all miss the inherent tension in the flock paying the shepherd. I miss them paying it indirectly via a denomination even less.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just to add that $40,000 CDN is about right for the salary of a priest in this diocese, with the addition of housing allowance/rectory, travel expenses, employer's contributions to Canada Pension Plan, personal pension, health & other insurance, etc., but that would not add up to $80,000 expense to the church. The salary is on an agreed scale, FWIW.
And there is nothing extra for having more than one church, beyond expenses such as mileage.
But since we're talking about a TEC priest, I'm assuming this is an American church where health care plus those other expenses added to a $40K salary could very well take you pretty close to $80K total church expense.
Presbytery minimum salaries for starting ministers (0-5 years experience) in my neck of the woods is $53K.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, who does fix stipends in TEC?
I think each church decides. In my local TEC, during the search they fired the choir director to get more money to offer a new clergy person. (then struggled to hold a choir together.) Total package $90,000 includes $30,000 for housing meaning the clergy-person will outright own the house in just 4 years. (And pay no income taxes on the money used to buy it.)
I don't understand why I should regard someone as receiving "only $30,000 a year" instead of $90,000 when the difference between those two figures is things considered income in our jobs. We all have to use (after-tax) earnings to rent or buy a place to live, why is a place to live "in addition to income" for clergy - especially when the place is owned by the clergy and the "housing allowance" is paying off the mortgage for them?
Also, the rest of us have to fund our own (401k and IRA) retirement plans from our income, why shouldn't clergy "set aside for retirement" funds be considered part of their income?
Most of us these days have to pay for some or all of our medical insurance, plus significant copayments and deductibles, from our income. Why shouldn't theirs be considered part of their income?
It's not that benefits don't count, it's that the way we compare clergy compensation with others' we're usually not comparing apples with apples. In any other field, when you say "compensation is $80K" that usually does not include benefits. In fact, most Americans have no idea what their health care costs their employer, even if they are paying part of the premium and/or a copay. Same with retirement packages. If you have a 401K, the employer contribution is not included in that compensation figure. Finally, clergy are considered self-employed by the IRS, which means we pay both parts of the social security tax, whereas other employees only pay half-- and again, the employer portion would not be included in quoted salary. The point being if you're going to compare salaries you need to be sure what you're comparing is the same package.
re: housing, otoh, there is no denying that the clergy housing tax break is quite the boon deal. But that really has nothing to do with the church, or even the clergyperson, other than the fact that they take advantage of it-- that's an IRS thing. The IRS has (for now) decided that clergy, unlike everyone else, do not have to pay taxes on our housing. I will be the first to admit that's unfair, all the more so these days, when plenty of other people are struggling and not just the lowly paid clergy. But again, your beef is with the IRS, and it really doesn't impact the church budget at all other than sometimes providing an excuse to underpay clergy (doesn't sound like that's the case here). If it makes you feel better, it's always on the edge whether that provision will continue. The only reason probably it's still there is it effects such a tiny portion of the federal budget politicians can't be bothered to mess with it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by seekingsister:
From what little I know about Episcopal salaries, are you that's not a total package of $80K including those benefits, rather than $80K plus benefits? And what is "very expensive healthcare" exactly? Have you seen the documents of her coverage?
The insurance coverage is very expensive. We have a relatively small pool. The small pool contains a bunch of older people. I could save the church money and get better health insurance if we didn't have to get insurance through the diocese.
Which would make the pool even smaller and less desirable for insurers, which would drive up costs to insure those older members still in the diocese plan.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's not that benefits don't count, it's that the way we compare clergy compensation with others' we're usually not comparing apples with apples. In any other field, when you say "compensation is $80K" that usually does not include benefits. In fact, most Americans have no idea what their health care costs their employer, even if they are paying part of the premium and/or a copay. Same with retirement packages. If you have a 401K, the employer contribution is not included in that compensation figure. Finally, clergy are considered self-employed by the IRS, which means we pay both parts of the social security tax, whereas other employees only pay half-- and again, the employer portion would not be included in quoted salary. The point being if you're going to compare salaries you need to be sure what you're comparing is the same package.
re: housing, otoh, there is no denying that the clergy housing tax break is quite the boon deal. But that really has nothing to do with the church, or even the clergyperson, other than the fact that they take advantage of it-- that's an IRS thing. The IRS has (for now) decided that clergy, unlike everyone else, do not have to pay taxes on our housing. I will be the first to admit that's unfair, all the more so these days, when plenty of other people are struggling and not just the lowly paid clergy. But again, your beef is with the IRS, and it really doesn't impact the church budget at all other than sometimes providing an excuse to underpay clergy (doesn't sound like that's the case here). If it makes you feel better, it's always on the edge whether that provision will continue. The only reason probably it's still there is it effects such a tiny portion of the federal budget politicians can't be bothered to mess with it.
This.
I'm going to add that having a salary of $30,000 and a housing allowance of $30,000 does not usually equal a total of $60,000 given to the pastor in any form. Rather, it's the same $30,000 counted twice. That's what they did for us when we were still paid. They took our base salary (coincidentally, about $30,000 gross though in a fairly high cost area) and they then told the IRS that 100% of it (in other words, $30,000) was designated as "Housing allowance." This cost the congregation nothing extra--all they had to do was pay the $30,000 salary and once a year, pass a resolution in the voters' assembly to say that the pastor's housing allowance was 100%. I am certain that at least some people were under the impression that the congregation was actually paying us $60,000--half in salary, half in housing costs. Nope. The resentment was the result of a total misunderstanding. It was the same freakin' $30,000, just relabeled.
And our situation then was a standard one for Lutheran pastors and teachers.
What benefit is there to that kind of game playing? Basically, it allows the pastor to have his whole salary tax-free provided that he can document the whole thing was spent on legaly allowable housing costs. These include mortgage or rent, gas, electric, and repairs to the house. Since many pastors make considerably under $30,000, it isn't at all hard to spend that much in a year on documentable housing expenses and rely on your spouse's income to pay for food, insurance, etc. (and not all Lutheran pastors have their insurance paid for, either)
In short, it saves the pastor what, a couple thousand in taxes a year? Which, when you consider that he's probably over-educated in an 80 hour workweek job with no expectation of a raise or promotion ever, seems allowable to me.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by seekingsister:
From what little I know about Episcopal salaries, are you that's not a total package of $80K including those benefits, rather than $80K plus benefits? And what is "very expensive healthcare" exactly? Have you seen the documents of her coverage?
The insurance coverage is very expensive. We have a relatively small pool. The small pool contains a bunch of older people. I could save the church money and get better health insurance if we didn't have to get insurance through the diocese.
Which would make the pool even smaller and less desirable for insurers, which would drive up costs to insure those older members still in the diocese plan.
Indeed
So, my parish has to pay an absurd amount of money to insure my family making it very expensive to hire me or my wife. On top of this, retired clergy continue to work while collecting their very generous pensions and not needing health insurance. The TEC deck is stacked against young clergy in so many ways. My generation is just waiting for the Boomers to ride off into the sunset. All of which has nothing to do with churches outside of TEC.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
What makes you think older and retired clergy don't need health insurance? Have you checked out what it costs? Even under Obamacare, insurance for those over 55 is 3x that of younger people (which is a deal-- before Obamacare it was usually 5x).
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
I won't go into the details but when I say the pension plan is generous I mean it's very generous. The only way you would have trouble affording health insurance is if you retired early and your spouse had no income. The obvious solution is to not retire early.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Sure, but when it comes to fronting the costs for Bible study books for example, compensation that includes housing costs, healthcare, and pension contributions doesn't mean you have the cash in your bank account to pay for things like that.
If I spend my rent money on Bible study books, my landlord would be distinctly unhappy with me. I don't think the difference between you paying me a larger salary and you paying me a smaller salary and housing me is different at all, as long as the house you're providing is the house I'd have chosen anyway.
If you're paying a huge sum of money for a 6-bedroom vicarage and I'm a single vicar, the big house wouldn't look like nearly that much income to me.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
Clergy in my diocese get pretty good pay IMO, the cash component is in excess of $55k PLUS housing, utilities, superannuation, and travel allowances and the tax law permits them to take a huge chunk of this tax-free. Now some clergy work at least 1 and a half-times a full-time job for that (often their wives work at least half-time for nothing o ntop of that) but others....not so much.
I see a number of churches where the rector appears to work about half-time, and yet Parishioners are expected to attend to a lot of ministries, eg music, children's ministry, fundraising, specific outreach to cultural groups not to mention book-keeping and meeting tax obligations etc ALL for no payment at all.
I suspect that churches would get a hell of a lot more bang for their buck if the Minister had his pay cut by a third and that third went towards paying 2 or 4 key people with skills in particular areas to develop ministries.
In the olden days, I saw a large chunk of my donation to church as supporting the Minister's work in the community but at least in Sydney, that "Good Samaritan" role has been drastically cut eg visiting in hospitals, nursing homes. helping people who aren't churchgoers doesn't seem to be part of the remit in most churches, it's all about preaching and running a few 2 ways to live classes and bible studies and maybe teaching scripture in the local school, again something ordinary Parishioners (always women) do for no pay.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
You are back to the church priority again if people are unhappy with things I think they should find a church that matches their belief. Because sadly IME, too many church congregations have no interest in the outside world and a too much interest in their leader being the pastor of their little flock.
Congregations complain all the time that their pastor doesn’t visit enough or whatever, I’ve even known ones which complained that their vicar spent too much time with the community groups.
It a sad reflection on churches that I have known, that I’ve yet to find one that complained that their vicar didn’t spend enough time with the poor/rejected/homeless or whatever
Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on
:
Just go back to what the early church did. Don't have a paid minister at all. St Paul managed without burdening other believers with a salary and he didn't do too badly...
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I thought the issue was whether the church decision makers were making wise decisions about how much to pay clergy. If a somewhat lower salary were reasonable to pay, the church would have money for other uses, too. Which I thought led to discussion about how much the clergy person should be considered to be paid, whether it's just the "salary" line or more.
From Twilight's OP:
quote:
Then she said that if anyone needed help paying for the book to see her and she would apply for a "scholarship," for them. What? I don't have anywhere near her income but I would gladly have paid for everyone's books rather than hear that. Why not say that there was an envelope by the books, contribute if you want, otherwise, never mind? We have a few little old ladies in the group who are living on social security and the ten dollars might be a pinch for them, but I'm sure they would hesitate to apply for a scholarship to be brooded over by the finance committee for ten lousy dollars.
The scholarship sounds like the church would be paying for those who applied - hence the reference to the finance committee.
Twilight says he/she would have paid for the books on a lower income than the priests, if only not to force people to apply for the funds from the church.
So I took that to mean the issue was that the priest has the money to cover the cost, rather than to use official channels which may take time and cause embarrassment.
I have been asked to buy books/videos for small groups, in one case the SG leader is a very well-off professional who could afford to pay for everyone's himself. It has never occurred to me to be upset that he is not offering to cover the costs for everyone.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Just go back to what the early church did. Don't have a paid minister at all. St Paul managed without burdening other believers with a salary and he didn't do too badly...
But didn't Jesus also say that the labourer is worthy of his hire?
It depends what you want from a church, some want professional paid leadership, others don't - horses for courses..
But you do need to be happy with the way the church you have chosen makes it's decisions. If you are not then either question them and try and change if possible. However if the culture is not going to change then maybe find another church.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I can see where what I said there was misleading, since I compared my lowly income to the pastors but I didn't mean I thought she should pay.
I wasn't offended that she didn't pay but that she even mentioned a "scholarship," for a paltry ten dollars. I thought the money should come from one of the many little funds most churches have. When I was a treasurer I was driven half crazy by the "Quicken system" of accounting that had about thirty separate little pockets for money. Under that system the book could have been bought through; the benevolence fund (anything under 500 dollars was at the pastor's discretion), Sunday school supplies, Christian education, library, outreach, hospitality. If she had just suggested a donation rather than paying for the books I imagine there would have been a profit and no one short of cash would have been embarrassed.
Mostly I was looking at that (Lutheran) church's priorities over all. In the past year:
$40,000 for a part-time preacher.
$8000 for a Clavinova when we already had an organ and piano and don't have a choir.
$1200 to help the poor.
zero to help an old lady buy a book.
I would like to see more for the last two and less for the first two.
I think the free services of the pastor's wife is beginning to be a thing of the past. At the UMC that I'm also familiar with, the pastor's wife works full time but supervises the Sunday school program. This involves about fifteen kids and requires ordering supplies a few times a year and organizing a few teachers. She asked for and got $5000 a year for this. In a church where the treasurer and music director are volunteer positions.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I wasn't offended that she didn't pay but that she even mentioned a "scholarship," for a paltry ten dollars. I thought the money should come from one of the many little funds most churches have. When I was a treasurer I was driven half crazy by the "Quicken system" of accounting that had about thirty separate little pockets for money. Under that system the book could have been bought through; the benevolence fund (anything under 500 dollars was at the pastor's discretion), Sunday school supplies, Christian education, library, outreach, hospitality. If she had just suggested a donation rather than paying for the books I imagine there would have been a profit and no one short of cash would have been embarrassed.
Did you try suggesting that? Cuz it seems like your intent and the priest's were the same-- to make sure that those who couldn't afford to pay would still be able to get a book. Your way certainly sounds easier/ less intrusive. So suggest it.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think the free services of the pastor's wife is beginning to be a thing of the past. At the UMC that I'm also familiar with, the pastor's wife works full time but supervises the Sunday school program. This involves about fifteen kids and requires ordering supplies a few times a year and organizing a few teachers. She asked for and got $5000 a year for this. In a church where the treasurer and music director are volunteer positions.
As one who has done the job, both professionally and as a volunteer, it really is no small task. Of course, neither is treasurer or music director.
Again, you're always going to have conflicts like the ones you're describing, where your priorities don't mesh up entirely with the actual budget. Church budgets are always messy and painful. The question is, can you trust the process? Is there transparency? Does it represent all the diversity of the congregation? Is it done in a way that is thoughtful and prayerful, even if you don't agree with the end result?
It does sound like you're getting pretty bitter, to the point almost of looking for things to complain about. At that point, I think it's time to do something-- whether that's get involved in the budgeting process, suggest a new process, or move to another church, is your call. But this sort of resentment and bitterness over the budget is in my experience, not a good sign.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
So. You're saying that so long as the finances are transparent that's really all that matters. And anyone who finds it out of whack that about 90% of the collection plate is going to the pastor's salary is just mean and bitter and ought to leave.
Sorry. I won't be changing churches over this, however bitter you and Lamb Chopped think I am. Several years ago, I switched from the UMC to Lutheran because the first church had quit having communion. That's far and away more important to me than this money issue. The financial priorities are just something I've thought about from time to time and it popped up again with the ten dollar book incident. I thought it would make an interesting thread topic.
Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on
:
But didn't Jesus also say that the labourer is worthy of his hire?
He did, but its pretty questionable if your average minister is actually doing what Jesus intended. Are they going out into the market place and proclaiming the gospel ? Probably not - more likely preaching it to the converted. Are they healing the sick ? Are they raising the dead ?
Its clear from St Paul's descriptions of church life where he talks about all being involved in services that it has to be small groups without one person dominating the service.
I don't have a problem with the traditional church model, but you certainly don't have to pay anyone just to be an orator that earns a lot more than the average member.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It does sound like you're getting pretty bitter, to the point almost of looking for things to complain about. At that point, I think it's time to do something-- whether that's get involved in the budgeting process, suggest a new process, or move to another church, is your call. But this sort of resentment and bitterness over the budget is in my experience, not a good sign. [/QB]
I think that's really harsh. There are so many whinges about all elements of church life on these boards. Bitching about music has become a dead horse for haveans sake, why is that somebody raising the issue of church finances must be doing so out of bitterness. IPerhaps clergy and clergy wives are being overly defensive about this because they feel their hip pocket nerve twitch, how dare somebody raise the issue of "my" salary-shut up or leave. Hmmm that's one way of holding onto your dosh (not saying this is the case but it's as fair as saying that Twilight is bitter and twisted).
Frankly, I see a lot of change in the church over the last 40 years and yet, the constant is the security and comfort of the rector's position. In the face of dwindling congregations and less work to the wider community, why should clergy continue to be paid as though they are ministering to a congregation of 250 and a parish of 10,000 when it's more like a congregation of 80 and no wider parish work at all.
I believe some of the awkwardness about all this is that once a rector is appointed, the congregation, at least in Anglicanism don't have a lot of say in what they do-technically rector receives a "stipend" which is different from a salary, with all of the responsiblitiles and accountabilities that salaries entail. So I used to put my money in the plate, to "outsource" visiting nursing homes and hospitals and teaching scripture in public schools, I wanted somebody to do it but couldn't do it myself. A new rector came along and after he was appointed he said "oh I don't like doing those things" and so he didn't. Not much visiting went on and unpaid volunteers taught scripture. It's a case of the piper calling his own tune and those who pay being called to submit to the piper's choices and leadership.
Getting back to the specifics of the OP, In what sort of profession could you take on a half-time role in addition to the supposedly full-time role you already have and are receiving a a full-time salary for? I can't help but wonder if it's not the Episcopalian Parish Council who are pulling a swifty here, maybe they are getting out of paying $40k cash salary and just providing the housing etc-which they're committed 'cos the church owns it anyway-it may be a pretty sweet deal for them. If the Priest is pocketing a full-time salary from the Episcopalians and a half-time one from the Lutherans then I'd say she's unethical in the extreme, but surely she wouldn't have the gall and why would the governing bodies of the respective churches agree to it?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
So. You're saying that so long as the finances are transparent that's really all that matters. And anyone who finds it out of whack that about 90% of the collection plate is going to the pastor's salary is just mean and bitter and ought to leave.
Of course, that's not exactly what I said.
What I said was that focusing on the specific differences in priorities is rarely productive, because there will always always always be differences in priorities. Church budgeting is always always always messy and always involves not funding Good Thing A so that you can fund Good thing B.
I'm suggesting that focusing on the process is more productive. I actually suggested several aspects of the process of which transparency was only one. Another one was a process that represents the diverse voices in your congregation. Assuming you are not an outlier, that would mean you or people who think like you. But I'm suggesting the most important aspect of the process is that it is demonstrably prayerful and that you can trust the people who are engaged in that process.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Sorry. I won't be changing churches over this, however bitter you and Lamb Chopped think I am.
And of course, I didn't suggest or advocate you change churches, but I did suggest that you not just sit and stew in your unhappiness. I don't make the charge of bitterness easily. I make it because I have seen this exact pattern far too often and I know for certain that it is incredibly unhealthy-- both for the church itself and for you. What action you will take next (I suggest several possibilities) is up to you, but I hope you will not allow your bitterness to fester. It will be deadly to everyone if you do.
One sign that you might be sliding into bitterness is the way you keep leaping to conclusions. As others have pointed out, it is extremely unlikely that your priest is actually making $120K in addition to housing and benefits. Unless you or the Episcopalians have some VERY wealthy members or a massive endowment, the membership of the two churches just wouldn't support that, even if (as you suggest) 90% of the budget was going to her salary. It is FAR more likely that you are conflating some categories and that $120K at the very least includes housing and benefits, and/or that the Lutheran $40K is half her salary, which means the TEC is now only paying $40K.
It also seems you are leaping to conclusions re the books. You and the priest have the exact same goal-- to be sure and cover the cost of books for those who can't afford it. Your plan is probably a bit easier and more comfortable for folks. But there's no evidence you ever suggested it. Your just mad that she didn't think of it herself.
This all seems, from my experience, to be a very very unhealthy pattern that doesn't end well.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
There is no way 90% of the budget goes to the priests salary. The diocesan assessment alone is more than 10% and that's before you factor in the cost of keeping the building open and in good enough repair. My total compensation package is around 40% of the budget. What I take home in salary plus utilities totals about 22%.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Getting back to the specifics of the OP, In what sort of profession could you take on a half-time role in addition to the supposedly full-time role you already have and are receiving a a full-time salary for?
Um... in what sort of profession can you NOT do that??? Seriously, these days all sorts of people working full time in all sorts of jobs-- from minimum wage unskilled laborers to highly educated professionals-- are taking on 2nd and even 3rd jobs. I'm hard pressed to think of ANY profession where this is disallowed. Sure, if the parish priest decides to take up pole dancing in her off hours, that might raise some eyebrows (among other things...) but other than that, it seems pretty much the norm. I have a 1/2 time position teaching at a local university, something my church was well aware of when they hired me in my current pastoral role. Other members of our pastoral staff have part time jobs in a bookstore and another as a barista at a local coffee shop.
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I can't help but wonder if it's not the Episcopalian Parish Council who are pulling a swifty here, maybe they are getting out of paying $40k cash salary and just providing the housing etc-which they're committed 'cos the church owns it anyway-it may be a pretty sweet deal for them.
I suspect that is precisely what is happening and don't see anything at all wrong with it. The priest appears to be splitting her time more or less equally between the two churches, with each providing about half her compensation (remember that the TEC is also picking up the tab for health care and pension, which would itself be close to $30K in the US).
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
If the Priest is pocketing a full-time salary from the Episcopalians and a half-time one from the Lutherans then I'd say she's unethical in the extreme, but surely she wouldn't have the gall and why would the governing bodies of the respective churches agree to it?
What in the world is unethical about taking a 2nd job-- especially when it's all completely out in the open like this? If you find that your doctor who gave you your flu shot this afternoon has taken a job teaching a course one night a week at the local med school, would you find him/her unethical? If your child's teacher picks up a few bucks over the weekend tutoring high schoolers, is s/he now ethically bankrupt? You have a strange sense of ethics IMHO.
Now, if the priest manages somehow to be "on the clock" for both churches at the same time-- pretends to be putting in hours in one place when actually working for the other-- yeah, that's unethical. But there has been no suggestion that is the case. In fact, it seems like the two churches have arranged there services at different times, working out a very upfront agreement about how she will divvy up her time.
[ 12. September 2014, 22:34: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
There is no way 90% of the budget goes to the priests salary. The diocesan assessment alone is more than 10% and that's before you factor in the cost of keeping the building open and in good enough repair. My total compensation package is around 40% of the budget. What I take home in salary plus utilities totals about 22%.
Yes. The numbers just don't add up. There seems to be a lot of jumping to conclusions here.
Which again is why I said there appears to be some bitterness (although I never said "twisted"). That never ends well.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What in the world is unethical about taking a 2nd job-- especially when it's all completely out in the open like this? If you find that your doctor who gave you your flu shot this afternoon has taken a job teaching a course one night a week at the local med school, would you find him/her unethical? If your child's teacher picks up a few bucks over the weekend tutoring high schoolers, is s/he now ethically bankrupt? You have a strange sense of ethics IMHO.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard pastors say that they work 80 hour weeks, are on call 24/7 (with an implication that they're called to the bedsides of dying parishioners three nights a week) and we lay people just have no idea how overworked they are. Now all of a sudden they're just like the guy who clocks in at the Burger King for a few hours and there's plenty of time for second jobs, without shirking the first one.
P.S. I didn't say 90% of the budget I said 90% of the collection plate. I've already said there are endowments in both churches.
[ 12. September 2014, 23:30: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I can't tell you how many times I've heard pastors say that they work 80 hour weeks, are on call 24/7 (with an implication that they're called to the bedsides of dying parishioners three nights a week) and we lay people just have no idea how overworked they are. Now all of a sudden they're just like the guy who clocks in at the Burger King for a few hours and there's plenty of time for second jobs, without shirking the first one.
Maybe the TEC has learned that it's not ethical to ask people to work 80 hour weeks, so she's more like other professionals working demanding professional jobs but also able to take on another part-time job. Or maybe (as I suspect) it's not FT $80K + PT $40K, but rather the TEC has agreed (no doubt for their own financial reasons) to split the position so it's two PT $40K jobs. Either way, I see nothing unethical about the taking of a 2nd job. But then since I'm a bivocational clergyperson I guess I would say that.
But hey, so glad to hear you're not at all bitter.
[code]
[ 13. September 2014, 06:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
Cliffdweller, is your half-time role at the university in addition to a full-time role in ministry?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
Or maybe (as I suspect) it's not FT $80K + PT $40K, but rather the TEC has agreed (no doubt for their own financial reasons) to split the position so it's two PT $40K jobs.
My money is on that as well. I'd be shocked if she was making $80,000 for the two parishes. Clergy sharing among Episcopal and Lutheran parishes isn't uncommon. In every instance known to me, the two parishes share the cost of one part time priest or pastor. Admittedly, this may be the exception. A woman making $80,000 and provided housing to pastor a church of 30 people might have not realized she had the coziest job in the church, gotten greedy, and convinced the vestry to go along with her taking a second position which meant they got less of her time and no help with paying her benefits not included in the $80,000+ they were paying her.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Cliffdweller, is your half-time role at the university in addition to a full-time role in ministry?
My current ministry position is 3/4 time; others on our staff are full time and still have some part time side jobs-- again, one in a bookstore, one also teaching in a univ., and one as a barista. This is really not unusual for ministers-- or for really all sorts of people in various professions.
[ 13. September 2014, 02:15: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
Well it is extremely unusual in an Australian context for someone to have a full-time and a half-time job, I can't imagine how you could do justice to either role let alone allowing time for family and rest, if you were doing the jobs properly. Perhaps standards, as well as wages are lower elsewhere.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Well it is extremely unusual in an Australian context for someone to have a full-time and a half-time job, I can't imagine how you could do justice to either role let alone allowing time for family and rest, if you were doing the jobs properly. Perhaps standards, as well as wages are lower elsewhere.
It's not easy, to be sure. But it's very very common here in the US, especially since the recession. Not sure if it's really "standards are lower"-- studies I've read suggest Americans work longer hours than most others. But yes, families and rest definitely pay the price for our long work hours.
Myself, I struggle with it. I'm not a multi-tasker. I love both my jobs, but I don't love having two jobs. But it's a financial necessity-- and, before Obamacare, the only way I could get health care (due to pre-existing conditions). My situation is not at all unusual here. I receive good reviews, so I'm assuming my two employers are not unhappy with how I'm managing.
[ 13. September 2014, 02:33: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
My original "bitterness" comment was aimed at myself (because I know damn well that this is something I struggle with, given the total lack of salary Mr. Lamb gets). But yes, Twilight, I'm hearing it from you as well. Takes one to know one, right?
On the fulltime plus job situation, Cliffdweller is right, plenty of people work extra jobs just to make ends meet in this country. [And parttime university jobs pay crap.]
It isn't unethical provided a) that you are putting in your full time and effort in each place, and b) that you aren't doublecharging stuff--counting the same thing towards both jobs. Unless, of course, both employers know about it and have agreed to it--in which case what you're doing is more like job merging.
As for what fulltime means--
No parish is entitled to pay their pastor any amount no matter how high and demand as a right that he put in seven twenty-four-hour days, 365 days a year. Full time in this country means 40 hours a week with occasional excursions into overtime when really needed. The fact that so many pastors work 60 to 80 hour workweeks (yes, Mr. Lamb is spending the night down at the hospital, how did you know?) is simple proof that some people are willing to work the equivalent of a second job for free. Or for love. However you want to put it.
Those extra 20 to 40 hours are not an entitlement of the congregation. They are a gift of love. If the pastor chooses to dispose of his free time (har har) in a different fashion (say, being a barrista), the congregation has no cause to bitch provided they're getting their 40 hours' worth of top quality ministry, plus emergencies as needed (e.g. deaths in the middle of the night).
Really, we don't own our pastors. No matter how much or how little we pay them.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I have always worked two, sometimes three jobs. This is because my real job, writing novels, doesn't pay enough to live on. So I eke it out with other work.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
This thread seems to be disintegrating into a clergy vs. laity cage match over how much ordained people should be paid. (You can put me down as bitter and resentful about the fact that the clergy where I work get pensions and the lay employees don't). But the question that Twilight posed goes beyond that.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
This church contributes a paltry $100 per month to the local food and clothing pantry. My husband's church can't even come up with that much but a few years ago they spent $60,000 so they could ruin the sanctuary with large screen TVs and a new sound system.
Is it just me, or are these priorities screwed up?
The lion's share of most churches' budgets goes toward personnel and infrastructure, which means that church money mainly just perpetuates the institution. And maybe that's fine -- maybe it's enough for a church to nurture and fortify the faith of the congregants, and they can then turn around and do good things in the community on their own or with other agencies. But I wouldn't want to be the church finance committee chair who goes to meet her maker and is asked to account for why she didn't object to a budget with $1200 in the line item for the local food pantry and $60,000 in the audio-visual line item.
Employing professionals and owning property locks most churches into a budget structure that doesn't leave much for anything beyond personnel and building expenses. It would take a major re-thinking of what the gospel means to us to change this.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
-
No parish is entitled to pay their pastor any amount no matter how high and demand as a right that he put in seven twenty-four-hour days, 365 days a year. Full time in this country means 40 hours a week with occasional excursions into overtime when really needed. The fact that so many pastors work 60 to 80 hour workweeks (yes, Mr. Lamb is spending the night down at the hospital, how did you know?) is simple proof that some people are willing to work the equivalent of a second job for free. Or for love. However you want to put it.
Those extra 20 to 40 hours are not an entitlement of the congregation. They are a gift of love. If the pastor chooses to dispose of his free time (har har) in a different fashion (say, being a barrista), the congregation has no cause to bitch provided they're getting their 40 hours' worth of top quality ministry, plus emergencies as needed (e.g. deaths in the middle of the night).
Really, we don't own our pastors. No matter how much or how little we pay them.
AFAIK, the diocese here (and I can't speak of the others) recognises this. When clergy take leave, the diocese pays a sum for the clergy to live in other accommodation, away from the rectory, so that they are actually on leave and don't have to deal with people knocking on the door. I can't recall if this applies to ordinary annual leave or only long service leave, but it is a very decent approach.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
This thread seems to be disintegrating into a clergy vs. laity cage match over how much ordained people should be paid. (You can put me down as bitter and resentful about the fact that the clergy where I work get pensions and the lay employees don't). But the question that Twilight posed goes beyond that.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
This church contributes a paltry $100 per month to the local food and clothing pantry. My husband's church can't even come up with that much but a few years ago they spent $60,000 so they could ruin the sanctuary with large screen TVs and a new sound system.
Is it just me, or are these priorities screwed up?
The lion's share of most churches' budgets goes toward personnel and infrastructure, which means that church money mainly just perpetuates the institution. And maybe that's fine -- maybe it's enough for a church to nurture and fortify the faith of the congregants, and they can then turn around and do good things in the community on their own or with other agencies. But I wouldn't want to be the church finance committee chair who goes to meet her maker and is asked to account for why she didn't object to a budget with $1200 in the line item for the local food pantry and $60,000 in the audio-visual line item.
Employing professionals and owning property locks most churches into a budget structure that doesn't leave much for anything beyond personnel and building expenses. It would take a major re-thinking of what the gospel means to us to change this.
Yes. And those two differing paths, two differing priorities, are always going to be in tension (even if you decide to forgo paid staff and rent a bldg, there will still be tensions). Which is why I have urged Twilight to focus on the overall process, rather than the specific complaint. Not because the complaint is wrong-- (as I mentioned early on, I currently find myself in a similar conflict for similar reasons)-- but because that's where real change will happen.
As Jim Wallis says, "budgets are moral documents." A budget reveals our priorities, and our identity as a community. It reveals our heart. And it reveals where we are putting our faith, where we are laying our trust for the future. It's imperative for that reason that our churches have a process that it is most of all prayerful-- and not the sort of prayerful where the prayer is just an opening ritual to begin the usual business-like negotiation. But rather the kind of prayer that transforms and changes us. The kind of prayer that helps us lean in, to hear the heart of God, and to make courageous decisions based on that.
[ 13. September 2014, 13:30: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
A few things...
Church budgets reflect the priorities of the local congregation. Most individuals choose a local church based on their experience on Sunday morning. The opinions about Sunday morning are based on worship, preaching, worship space, accessibility (both of the building and people), and to a lesser extent Christian formation. This is what Christians want from the local congregation they attend. Church budgets reflect that.
After Sunday worship, people want somebody to perform the sacraments for them even if they call the sacraments ordinances or nothing at all. They want somebody to do weddings and funerals. Some want a person to visit them when they are sick. Others want a person to talk to when they have problems. Still, others want the local church to offer opportunities to learn and discuss their faith. One of the reasons that people attend church in the first place is so that their children can learn morals.
A nice chunk of a parishes budget goes to clergy salary because the clergy are responsible for providing or overseeing the provision of the provision of things they value in their local congregation. The more educated and better trained you want that person to be the more money will have to be devoted to that person's salary. The more time you expect the person to work the more money you'll have to spend. One Episcopal church in the diocese hired a rector to work 10 hours a week. Obviously, she couldn't afford to live on the salary from working 10 hours a week. Her primary job was as a hospital chaplain at a hospital an hour and a half away. Everything was fine until a longtime and beloved member of the congregation died. Family wanted to have the funeral on a Thursday morning. Priest couldn't do the funeral on a Thursday morning because she had a job. The church felt entitled to a full time priest for a fraction of the money.
What about giving money to the local food pantry? Well, the local food pantry is probably not a major priority for the average person sitting in the pews. You don't need to give your money to your local church if you want to give money to the food pantry. The food pantry takes money from individuals just fine. So do all the other charities.
Personally, I'm ambivalent about supporting charities from the operations budget. I'd prefer to do fundraisers and collections to support specific needs. Ideally, the local congregation should be involved in hands on outreach running their own food pantry, clothes closet, free meal, or whatever else depending on the size of the church and the needs of the community. My spent several hundred thousand dollars remodeling our building. However, parishioners and volunteers feed about a 100 people a week in the renovated parish hall. They also installed showers which we allow people who attend the free meal to use if needed. In the next couple of weeks, the church will also be hosting a free clinic at the same time as the weekly free meal. The parish also provides office space and some money for an organization that runs a women's sober house a few blocks from the church. Some women who graduate from the sober house can live rent free in an apartment on church grounds owned and maintained by the church. The church also hosts an AA, Al Anon, or NA group every day of the week.
Yes, my parish prioritizes Sunday morning worship. We are Anglo-Catholics. However, the community that worships together on a Sunday morning engages in significant outreach together as a result of the worship they prioritize. They also write checks to charities without running it through the operations budget of the local parish.
As to RuthW's specific situation...
My diocese is talking about setting compensation standards for lay employees. My guess is most diocese will continue to do that. Churches already have to offer health insurance to full time employees. Pension might be next. That's fine. However, let's be clear about what that means. Most churches will just hire part time lay employees if they hire them at all. Priests will have to do more of the every day administrative tasks and some won't get done. A priest will not always be there to answer the phone and answer trivial questions. The priest won't have time to send reminders to every single person for every single thing. Some will see this as a breakdown in communication and blame the priest. The fact they come once a month and don't read the bulletin, web site, facebook page, or newsletter will have nothing to do with it because that would make it their fault and not the fault of the priest.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As to RuthW's specific situation...
My diocese is talking about setting compensation standards for lay employees. My guess is most diocese will continue to do that. Churches already have to offer health insurance to full time employees. Pension might be next. That's fine. However, let's be clear about what that means. Most churches will just hire part time lay employees if they hire them at all. Priests will have to do more of the every day administrative tasks and some won't get done.
What you say doesn't apply at all to my specific situation. I work for a big church which is hardly poor, and paying for pensions for the three lay employees who are eligible for health insurance would not cause them to have to reduce their staff.
Churches that pay pensions for clergy do so because they are required to, and they don't pay pensions for lay employees because they aren't required to. If so-called progressive churches really believed what they preach, they would fund pensions for lay employees before funding them for clergy, as clergy members make more money and are therefore more able to save for old age and retirement. Instead, most churches simply adopt the unfair practices of the rest of our society in which full-time professionals have well-paid positions and a secure retirement while the people who do the cleaning are barely getting by and are planning to work till they drop dead.
Your argument against paying pensions for lay workers is the same one people use against raising the minimum wage, and it's just as inaccurate and immoral in this context.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As Jim Wallis says, "budgets are moral documents." A budget reveals our priorities, and our identity as a community. It reveals our heart. And it reveals where we are putting our faith, where we are laying our trust for the future. It's imperative for that reason that our churches have a process that it is most of all prayerful-- and not the sort of prayerful where the prayer is just an opening ritual to begin the usual business-like negotiation. But rather the kind of prayer that transforms and changes us. The kind of prayer that helps us lean in, to hear the heart of God, and to make courageous decisions based on that.
I've heard this sermon more times than I can count in various churches, and yet the Episcopal, Baptist and United Church of Christ churches whose finances I know the most about all end up doing basically the same thing, year after year, with most of the money going to personnel and building, and I don't see evidence that any other church in town that owns its own building is different.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
My spent several hundred thousand dollars remodeling our building. However, parishioners and volunteers feed about a 100 people a week in the renovated parish hall.
And what happens in it the other six days a week? The programs in your church sound wonderful, truly, and I hope the space is all well used on a regular basis. But the amount of square footage owned by churches that sits empty six days a week is appalling. Church members where I work who come by during the week frequently remark on how quiet it is, and I always have to restrain myself from pointing out that most of the time there is comparatively little going on given the size of the facility, even when the calendar makes it look like the church is busy.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by RuthW:
Your argument against paying pensions for lay workers is the same one people use against raising the minimum wage, and it's just as inaccurate and immoral in this context.
I'm not arguing against pensions just stating a fact. Large Episcopal churches with multiple clergy and lay professionals aren't the norm. I know enough about the average church budget to know how the vast majority of Episcopal churches would handle such a requirement. Again, it is a question of priorities. The church may decide that making a statement that if you can't afford to pay a pension then you can't afford to hire somebody. I don't have a problem with that. I'm just telling you what the consequences will be.
Raising the minimum wage has both costs and benefits. If you think the benefits outweigh the costs, then you support raising the minimum wage and if you don't you don't. Same thing goes with every policy decision you make. If the diocese or national church mandated local churches provide pension benefits to lay employees, I'm not sure what my parish would ultimately do. Pension would be cheaper than health insurance. Neither are full time. I confess I don't know how the pension fund works.
quote:
originally posted by RuthW:
What you say doesn't apply at all to my specific situation. I work for a big church which is hardly poor, and paying for pensions for the three lay employees who are eligible for health insurance would not cause them to have to reduce their staff.
I meant to make that point generally and figured it applied to you. As often when posting on Ship of Fools, I got in a hurry and failed to say everything I was thinking. For that, I apologize.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
But I wouldn't want to be the church finance committee chair who goes to meet her maker and is asked to account for why she didn't object to a budget with $1200 in the line item for the local food pantry and $60,000 in the audio-visual line item.
I'm planning to say that I did object, but was told I was very bitter and needed to go away and pray about the process.
I do agree with Beeswax Altar about the point that churches can't be expected to fund every charity that comes along, but feeding and clothing the poor seems to me like a particular duty of Christians, above things like annual Cancer drives.
Any church that has regular meals (and showers!) for the poor sounds very admirable to me. The two churches I've talked about do not have anything like that at all. The hot meals and food and clothing pantry in this town is a joint venture of several of the local churches, including these two churches, so IMO they are letting down an unwritten pledge when they don't contribute or contribute very little.
Ruth is a church treasurer. I have been one and my husband is currently volunteer treasurer at one church and at that food pantry. It's interesting that the closer observation that comes with those jobs starts to raise questions and the questions are sometimes met with very vague answers. I'm not saying all clergy! I've known some who are conscientious and scrupulous to an extreme.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
But I wouldn't want to be the church finance committee chair who goes to meet her maker and is asked to account for why she didn't object to a budget with $1200 in the line item for the local food pantry and $60,000 in the audio-visual line item.
I'm planning to say that I did object, but was told I was very bitter and needed to go away and pray about the process.
You're getting closer: NOT go away. Stay. Stay and pray. Stay and talk about process. Stay and talk about a process that really, prayerfully lives out your values-- values like the ones Ruth is talking about, which can be embodied in the way we treat ALL our staff. Value like the ones you mention, that can be embodied in the way we prioritize caring for the poor over caring for our own comfort. Do so, not out of bitterness or anger, but out of a love for Christ and for Christ' church-- and a deep conviction that we can be better than this. That means setting aside your assumptions (cuz honestly, it really does seem like you have habit of jumping to cynical conclusions) and listening, but also speaking out-- in the right places, out of the heart of compassion and love and community.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by RuthW:
And what happens in it the other six days a week?
The church has one large room set aside for use by AA, NA, and Al ANON. There is at least one meeting every day of the week and multiple meetings on most days. Our organist gives music lessons at church. Other community groups use the parish hall regularly. Like every other church, we have choir practice, bible studies, and committee meetings. Sure, the place isn't busy every hour of the day. However, I live in a small town. Other than the grocery stores, no place in town is busy every hour of the day.
Point is the building is available when people need it.
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on
:
When I was last on a church board (about 4 years ago) we had an annual budget of about 110K coming from about 25-30 parishoners (actually, from about 8 of those...but I digress). The following are rough numbers from my now 4-year old memory. We paid about 20K to the district (aka diocese) and about 45K in straight salary to the pastor. Another 10K or so in social security (we paid both halves) and another 5-10K in utilities for the church and parsonage. I think healthcare was about another 10K or so.
That left around 15-20K for everything else....building insurance for the church and parsonage, miscellaneous office/custodial supplies, bulletin printing, etc. Once we put some aside for major repairs (roof, HVAC, repave the parking lot, etc.), there wasn't much left.
Those numbers are pretty rough, but the point is that if we had 2-5K a year to spend on actual ministries, it was a good year.
Ironically, the church property is worth about 3 to 4 million USD. If someone told the district to build a 4 million dollar church to serve 30 people they'd be laughed out of town. But that's effectively what they have now. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 15. September 2014, 20:31: Message edited by: monkeylizard ]
Posted by the ghofian (# 18223) on
:
Interesting. I get the angst but you should come to churches over here in Nigeria for some real anger. Private jets, cars that bend and accounts that overflow but not in the holy way.
there is something really out of whack with values within the bastion of all true value: the church.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Crap spouted by RuthW:
The amount of square footage owned by churches that sits empty six days a week is appalling.
True in our case: our halls are well-used, but the main church building is not. Trouble is, it is inflexible, "churchy" and costs a lot to heat - there's not much you can use it for except worship and concerts.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Crap spouted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Crap spouted by RuthW:
The amount of square footage owned by churches that sits empty six days a week is appalling.
True in our case: our halls are well-used, but the main church building is not. Trouble is, it is inflexible, "churchy" and costs a lot to heat - there's not much you can use it for except worship and concerts.
it'd be useful to re-cultivate a tradition where the nave is public space. I guess that requires a presupposition of respect, which may be more of an issue than it was 400 years ago when the nave was a public space.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
WHen church naves were treated as public spaces...they had earth or stone floors, at ground level (certainly no more than one or two steps up or down from ground level) and were unheated. And no permanent seating. And the naves were usually effectively shut off from the chancels by screens.
However much I'd like to have the nave of my parish church used by the public, none of the above apply. As they mostly don't in most churches built after 1660 or remodeled since the reformation.
John
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0