|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Salary negotiations
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
I attend a church where they recently had their congregational AGM. Which included a significant rise in the Pastor's cost to the church (which was hidden in the budget and sprung on the congregation at the meeting). However, many members of the congregation (myself included) felt unable to question it or vote it down as the Pastor was present at the front, with the Elders for both the discussion and the vote, and it was a vote by show of hands, not secret.
Here's my question: Do you think it was appropriate for the Pastor to be present both for the discussion and for the vote? Would you have felt able to vote against it when it's someone you like and respect and you risk damaging the relationship if you publicly vote against it? What would your next step be?
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
A lot of pastors and families will excuse themselves for reasons of delicacy. But there can be problems if the pastor needs to speak to other budget issues, as is often the case.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
When it was originally set the Pastor's salary was voted on (prior to his arrival) anonymously and as a separate item before the main budget. Were there to be any increases, this was what I was expecting to happen. The fact that one year in he needs a 20% increase in salary is concerning to me to say the least.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Is your church part of a denomination? If it is, it is easy to say that the stipend should follow denominational guidelines. There are variants on this: a part-time Pastor could be paid (say) 50% of the denominational figure; conversely a wealthy church could add a percentage "uplift" to the figure, continued from year to year. This procedure avoids awkward discussions, unless the status of Pastor or church change (or unless there are wider problems in the relationship).
As a general rule I think that the Diaconate/Eldership/Finance Committee should discuss the stipend without the Pastor being present. If s/he is an "ex officio" member s/he should discreetly leave for that part of the meeting. A recommendation can then be brought to Church Meeting, again with the Pastor temporarily absent. This allows honest discussion to take place; if there are issues that are raised, the Pastor needs to be made aware of them.
What happened in your church was wrong. Unless there are specific extenuating circumstances, questions need to be asked of the "lay" leaders, who are - or should be - accountable to the membership. Although it would have been awkward, someone should have spoken out at the meeting, making it very clear that they were not questioning the "worth" of the minister but expressing grave doubts about the decision-making process within the church. It sounds as if Pastor and Elders (or whatever) are just a bit too "cosy" with each other.
I have never had difficulties on this matter. Where I have felt uncomfortable has been in raising issues to do with the Manse, especially if I know that money is tight.
May I just ask one more point? Was it in fact the stipend that was raised, or was it more a realisation that his/her ancillary expenses (car, phone, stationery, books etc.) had been held at far too low a level for years, thus demanding immediate rectification? If so, this should have been made clear to the meeting.
[ 01. February 2015, 18:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Can only reflect what's normal for at least some Anglican churches. In the CofI (north) where the stipendiary minister normally gets his stipend from the parish, it's expected - of course - the rector will leave the room for that part of the discussion. I can't think of a select vestry who would dream of passing a wage rise without a candid discussion first. And the AGM is precisely the place for congo members to raise their own queries.
In the CofE where stipends are paid usually by the diocese, it's the clergy expenses that get the penny-by-penny analysis both in PCC and during the APCM. Grown clergymen and -women have been known to age years overnight in anticipation of the grilling!
Paid church workers should be held properly accountable. If they don't realize that for themselves they're probably in the wrong job. If the church members feel unable to question the expenditure of their own money gifts to the church, then something's wrong.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
P.S. My stipend has been augmented this year by 1.7%, in accordance with URC guidelines (our church is joint Baptist/URC, and it was agreed when I came that my stipend would conform to the URC figure).
(Missed edit window).
[ 01. February 2015, 18:49: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Yes, I think it is inappropriate. The pastor should not be present for the vote. It is not clear what to do about it. Try to make known that this is a poor practice and if necessary, seek another church home.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
If the church members feel unable to question the expenditure of their own money gifts to the church, then something's wrong.
My attitude has sadly become that I'm going to entirely cut my giving to the church. I think I will instead be making my giving entirely to our supported missionaries who are desperately short of money, while our pastor gets a 20% increase, budgeted giving to them increased by 4% this year.
I consider it entirely wrong that my minister now makes 3x my salary, and 1.5x average for the area, making him one of the best paid members of the church without any question. In this case it wasn't an 'actual' salary increase, it was a change that rather than him paying for the Manse himself, the congregation will now pay the rent. To the tune of 20% of his salary.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
If the church members feel unable to question the expenditure of their own money gifts to the church, then something's wrong.
My attitude has sadly become that I'm going to entirely cut my giving to the church. I think I will instead be making my giving entirely to our supported missionaries who are desperately short of money, while our pastor gets a 20% increase, budgeted giving to them increased by 4% this year.
I consider it entirely wrong that my minister now makes 3x my salary, and 1.5x average for the area, making him one of the best paid members of the church without any question. In this case it wasn't an 'actual' salary increase, it was a change that rather than him paying for the Manse himself, the congregation will now pay the rent. To the tune of 20% of his salary.
It might be worth asking (who to ask will depend on the polity of your particular denomination) the reasoning behind the raise first.
From what you've said, it certainly looks shady, and I would join you in being concerned. But it's always best to ask. Perhaps there's been some major shift in the pastor's responsibilities/ hours. Perhaps the trustees (or whoever plays that role in your church) recognize the pastor was underpaid in the past (which might have been intentional for a short period of time-- perhaps agreed upon to get the church through the recession, say) and are attempting to make up for several years w/o a raise. Just floating possibilities.
Also, depending on the denomination and the way the salary is reported, what looks like a very generous salary (1.5x average) may in fact be something less. For example, unlike most employers, many churches report as "pastor's salary" the entire cost to the church-- which in the US includes medical and pension benefits and reimbursement for travel and other expenses. Since virtually no other employer reports salaries this way-- and most American employees have absolutely no idea how much these benefits cost their employer-- pastor's salaries often look much much higher than the really are, because you're comparing apples w/ oranges.
Again, there's enough here to warrant concern, and a good probability that you are sadly correct in your assessment. Just cautioning that it might be best to get a bit more info before taking action.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
A good point. I know that in my last pitifully paid job, they reported a total expense of more than $100,000 spent on having me as an employee, and I saw less than a third of that as gross wages. Net wages, even lower.
Asking for more details is a great idea. Non-defensively, if possible.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
As an employer in Canada, the costs to have an employee are typically 1.2 to 2% of payroll as a fee to Workers' Compensation, matching amounts to (un)employment insurance and Canada Pension Plan, and whatever you're negotiated with employees. Typically this means about 1 in 6 dollars goes to the gov't or its agencies. If you want to cover expenses, then you have the 5 in 6 dollars left to both pay the employee and cover the expenses. So, we start at the level of 50% with new people and move them to 60% when financially feasible which translates to about 4 of 6 dollars taken in get paid to the employee.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As an employer in Canada, the costs to have an employee are typically 1.2 to 2% of payroll as a fee to Workers' Compensation, matching amounts to (un)employment insurance and Canada Pension Plan, and whatever you're negotiated with employees. Typically this means about 1 in 6 dollars goes to the gov't or its agencies. If you want to cover expenses, then you have the 5 in 6 dollars left to both pay the employee and cover the expenses. So, we start at the level of 50% with new people and move them to 60% when financially feasible which translates to about 4 of 6 dollars taken in get paid to the employee.
And of course, in the US, health care costs are significantly higher, so the cost to employer is even greater-- often as much as 50% of salary or more. And when you add in travel and other reimbursable expenses, you get something like what we see w/ Lamb Chopped-- where the reported salary is actually 3x the actual compensation.
But even if it turns out that my most generous scenario is true, and this is all perfectly above-board, raising questions will still serve a valuable role in alerting the trustees that the way they went about this (not being transparent about the full extent of the raise & why, having pastor & family present for the vote) was bound to lead to these sorts of (possibly) misunderstandings. If in fact it is all above-board they have done the pastor a grave mis-service by sowing possible discontent and having others decide to just not give to what they believe to be a bloated budget.
The way my church (no model of financial transparency, unfortunately, but this part is helpful) handles it is to have a well-publicized "budget forum" in the week before the annual meeting. The budget is presented in detail with the trustees all present to answer questions. This means at the annual meeting the budget voting can be done rather quickly and efficiently, leaving time to celebrate significant accomplishments in the prior year and talk about goals and vision for the upcoming year.
[ 01. February 2015, 21:22: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The way my church ... handles it is to have a well-publicized "budget forum" in the week before the annual meeting. The budget is presented in detail with the trustees all present to answer questions. This means at the annual meeting the budget voting can be done rather quickly and efficiently, leaving time to celebrate significant accomplishments in the prior year and talk about goals and vision for the upcoming year.
What an excellent way of going about things!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rogue
Shipmate
# 2275
|
Posted
I would feel very uncomfortable being in a whole-congregation meeting which discusses employee remuneration. It seems unfair to the employee for every man and his dog to know what they are being paid and even to have some control over how much it is. In the extreme a vocal minority with a beef could even have a hold over the employee.
My church is CofE so the ministers are paid by the diocese at set rates. But we do have a payroll and pay is set by the Church Council and the congregation as a whole has no say.
At my work pay reviews are conducted by the Board and while they might ask for input from a manager they will have the discussions and the decision. The only details that come out of the meeting are the actual decisions made rather than the various debates and the only people that know about it are the employee and the payroll department. This seems fair to all concerned and I don't see why a church should want to follow a different path.
I guess some churches have been doing it for years that way and "if it ain't bust don't fix it" might apply. I would suggest that it is bust.
--------------------
If everyone starts thinking outside the box does outside the box come back inside?
Posts: 2507 | From: Toton | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
In the extreme a vocal minority with a beef could even have a hold over the employee.
Unfortunately, that is true.
quote:
My church is CofE so the ministers are paid by the diocese at set rates. But we do have a payroll and pay is set by the Church Council and the congregation as a whole has no say.
I think that is a fundamental difference between Anglican and "Congregationalist" structure (as found in Baptist and URC churches, for example). In our tradition the ultimate accountability always lies with the Church Meeting. However, if the members have confidence in the Elders/Deacons, then issues such as these need not be discussed in public.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd be very uncomfortable being in a church where what's been described here would or could happen.
My experience of Baptist and Anglican churches has been that they're pretty transparent when it comes to this sort of thing. Some of the more 'independent' outfits, less so ... but that isn't always the case.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes. There are, of course, those churches which cry "let the leaders lead" (sometimes as a direct reaction to the pettiness that can be expressed in Church Meetings). However it is only a small step from there to saying that the congregation has no right to question their decisions, or to ask for detail - as to do so would be "challenging those who God has anointed".
Once you get there, you're into very dangerous territory indeed - not that I'm suggesting for a moment that the church described in the OP is anywhere near it.
Have you (Gamaliel) encountered this in your wanderings down the years?
[ 02. February 2015, 13:26: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
The Rogue writes:
quote:
I would feel very uncomfortable being in a whole-congregation meeting which discusses employee remuneration. It seems unfair to the employee for every man and his dog to know what they are being paid and even to have some control over how much it is. In the extreme a vocal minority with a beef could even have a hold over the employee.
I think there needs to be a transparency which is fair to all concerned. Personal issues should not be discussed in open forum, but everyone should have access to the process as a whole in some way.
I was an Elder in a independent church with a congregational governance where every year the staff salaries had to be discussed and voted on in a general church 'business' meeting
- the staff members left the meeting while this was the agenda item.
The discussions were always contentious, never taking into account the package as a whole, focussing only on the bottom line, regardless of hours worked, (including 'antisocial' hours), pension and holiday entitlement, and so on. There was a lot of personal prejudice exposed, and sadly any theological principles that may or may not have helped in deciding such things were lost in the emotion of it all. (A whole other thread?)
Eventually, the Elders proposed that staff salaries should be linked to an external national scale. This immediately defused the situation for all concerned. We could rationally discuss what scale we would adopt (somewhere in the Public Services). Together, the church agreed that for salary purposes only, we would attach our staff to the Teacher's scale, at different points on the scale for different roles.
Once this was agreed, staff no longer had to leave meetings while their pay was held to ransom by the discontented, the jealous, or even the over generous! Whenever Teachers' salaries were reviewed nationally, the church finances were adjusted accordingly, with no potential acrimony or awkwardness. Happy Church, appropriately rewarded staff. javascript:void(0)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Dare I say that this is one of the problems that Independent churches are more likely to face? When you have a defined denominational pay structure, things are easier (although you may still have those nasty, hurtful discussions in Church Meeting!)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Dare I say that this is one of the problems that Independent churches are more likely to face? When you have a defined denominational pay structure, things are easier (although you may still have those nasty, hurtful discussions in Church Meeting!)
Perhaps more prone, but not immune. My denomination (PCUSA) has a "Presbytery minimum" similar to the one suggested linking to teacher's salaries. But that's a minimum-- many pastors labor for decades at the minimum (which is really intended for recent seminary grads in first call) while others earn 4 or 5 times that sum-- generally based on the wealth and prestige of the congregation, rather than any more objective criteria. Our denomination also requires that all pastoral salaries be disclosed and voted on by the congregation. Sometimes this leads to contention for a variety of reasons. otoh, having the salary disclosed can also work in the favor of the staff, as the congregation sometimes speaks up re inequalities (e.g. if the women are all paid less than the men, or associates significantly less than lead pastor).
Budgets are always, always messy processes-- especially church budgets where you're weighing one Good against another Good. Salaries make this even more messy. There are some things you can do to make it less so, but the end result is going to be messy no matter what.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Good post.
Among BUGB Baptists, there is a "standard stipend" which has to be paid in churches supported by Home Mission (denominational) funding. Many other churches take the same figure, but there is no compulsion: some little churches may pay less, some prestigious ones may offer a lot more.
AFAIU in the United Reformed Church, where salaries are paid centrally, the congregation has no say in the matter at all. But, then, their contributions to the "Mission & Ministry" Fund don't directly pay for their minister.
Of course, individual churches do find ways of being less - or more - generous in their contributions towards "expenses", although we don't at least have to contend with the North American health care costs which have been mentioned above.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd be very uncomfortable being in a church where what's been described here would or could happen.
My experience of Baptist and Anglican churches has been that they're pretty transparent when it comes to this sort of thing. Some of the more 'independent' outfits, less so ... but that isn't always the case.
In every board or committee I've ever served on, if questions of remuneration (broadly considered) for senior staff arise, that member of staff leaves the room during the discussion and the vote in order to ensure that the discussion and vote can be free. That is Good Governance 101. Heck, when our PCC discussed whether they would pay for robes and scarf for our newly-licensed reader- a one-off present to him worth about £300- he left the room: and quite rightly.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Gallica officinalis
Shipmate
# 3886
|
Posted
In the UK if the church is a registered charity, the church council or equivalent body are likely to be the trustees of the charity and have legal responsibilities. They are usually not permitted to be beneficiaries of the charity, except in very particular circumstances.
From page 33 of the 46 page pdf on the Charities commission website
Where a trustee-employee is not being paid explicitly for being a trustee, negotiations in relation to pay and salaries should be completely outside the trusteeship role. We do not need to approve annual increases in salary or benefits for a trustee-employee which constitute a reasonable incremental progression within an established and transparent employee pay structure.
However, where salary increments, bonuses, or other tangible benefits are substantial, and not clearly justifiable by reference to any formal pay scale, our authority would be required if trustee boards wished to avoid potential legal challenge.
Generally, trustee boards should be wary of agreeing to any payment or benefits which might be regarded as excessive in relation to the employment, and which might cause concerns about unacceptable levels of private benefit within their charity.
--------------------
Come for tea, come for tea, my people.
Posts: 874 | From: The Hemlock Hideout | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I have a memory of an issue in the Congregational Church where I became a member, to be shocked that where the Holy Spirit had been invoked to guide the Church Meeting, that meeting descended into distinctly opposite and heated positions with regard to the minister's housing. There was a problem with flooding of the basement of the Manse. Fair enough. The minister had found an alternative property, difficult for many members to get to, a semi in a large garden instead of a terrace, and issued an ultimatum - he would leave if this was not bought for him. I can't recall if he remained in the meeting. He got the new Manse.
When my college put on The Crucible, I recognised the reason for Proctor leaving the Salem church.
It's odd how some people don't recognise wrongness when it rises up in front of them.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Offeiriad
Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Heck, when our PCC discussed whether they would pay for robes and scarf for our newly-licensed reader- a one-off present to him worth about £300- he left the room: and quite rightly.
As a former Director of Reader Training, I thought I should mention that the provision, upkeep and eventual replacement of ministerial robes as required by Canon Law is a ministry expense, and is the responsibility of the PCC. No way should it be regarded as in any sense a 'one-off present' to the user.
[ 02. February 2015, 17:45: Message edited by: Offeiriad ]
Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
I do not know how the wages in our church are set as I have never done the membership course, despite being there for 10 years. However, a few years ago there was a shortfall in the annual budget and a couple of months before the end of the year the elders gave themselves a temporary 10% pay cut to make up the shortfall. It was a very humbling experience for the congregation.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Heck, when our PCC discussed whether they would pay for robes and scarf for our newly-licensed reader- a one-off present to him worth about £300- he left the room: and quite rightly.
As a former Director of Reader Training, I thought I should mention that the provision, upkeep and eventual replacement of ministerial robes as required by Canon Law is a ministry expense, and is the responsibility of the PCC. No way should it be regarded as in any sense a 'one-off present' to the user.
We stand corrected. Anyway, he's got'em now.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes. There are, of course, those churches which cry "let the leaders lead" (sometimes as a direct reaction to the pettiness that can be expressed in Church Meetings). However it is only a small step from there to saying that the congregation has no right to question their decisions, or to ask for detail - as to do so would be "challenging those who God has anointed".
Once you get there, you're into very dangerous territory indeed - not that I'm suggesting for a moment that the church described in the OP is anywhere near it.
Have you (Gamaliel) encountered this in your wanderings down the years?
I don't know why people think I've 'wandered' ... I've been involved with my current church for 7 or 8 years (since moving into the area) although my actual service/meeting attendance is probably lower than its ever been ... about twice a month.
Prior to that I was a member of a Baptist church for 6 years and prior to that a member of a 'restorationist' congregation for 18 years. So it's not as if I've church-hopped extensively.
Before settling into the restorationist setting, I ahad about 18 months visiting and trying out different types of church - although I was a student then and spending my time between my university city and home-town.
I have had friends/contacts in all manner of different churches and so did pick up a pretty good sense of most types of church fairly quickly.
Howbeit, to answer Baptist Trainfan's question, I've certainly come across the 'touch not the Lord's anointed' malarkey ...
In fairness, my experience of the 'restorationist' house-churches was that they were reasonably transparent when it came to showing budgets etc - what they didn't do was involve anyone other than the elders and trustees in the decision-making ... by and large.
We were certainly shown pie-charts and accounts and so on. These were usually presented as a fait-accompli with room for questioning - but not challenge. We did see the figures though and were aware of who was paid what - at least at a local church level.
It wouldn't be fair of me to comment on rumours I heard about financial issues - nor some instances I know about ... but these didn't happen where I was - at least not during the time I was involved with the particular fellowship I was part of.
My overall sense with the restorationist churches - and they were pretty heavy on tithing and 'heap offerings' and exhortations to give ('God loves a cheerful giver ...') etc - wasn't so much that they were guilty of financial improprieties as overly ambitious undertakings on the assumption that people would dig deeply and support them.
There were considerable sums raised at Bible Weeks and so on to fund this, that or the other initiative that was meant to herald some major breakthrough ... yadda yadda yadda ...
And, like mugs, we coughed up.
I remember one student putting his entire grant (there were such things in those days) into a 'heap offering' and then having to scrounge food off the rest of us in the rented student house because he didn't have anything to live on.
Years later, I challenged some of the big-cheese leaders about this and they shrugged it off. If he'd given 'in faith' then the Lord would have provided ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
To second what Gamaliel says above - my experience with independent churches in this country would be similar. Their faults generally being naivety rather than veniality - with sometimes spending being penny wise and pound foolish. Certainly none of the leaders were profiteering from it - the leaders who did seem to have better lifestyles usually had spouses who worked, or families who had helped them buy their house and so on.
From my briefer observations, independent churches in the US were similar (unless you got into megachurch territory) - if there was over spending it was far more likely to be in the area of equipment (PA, Church Transport and the like) rather than the pastors salary. I suspect donations being earmarked had something to do with this.
[ 03. February 2015, 08:41: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
