Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Today was something of a landmark day for me.  It was the first time I had ever spoken up in a congregational meeting (for shame, I know, I know).  Interesting as I look back on the experience that I had to choose the annual budget meeting to speak up.  What was the issue?  There really wasn’t any “issue” as such…just seeking clarity on something that just about no one ever wants to discuss (at least in most churches)–pastoral staff compensation packages.  To be sure, like the rest of us I come to the issue with some baggage, being raised a preacher’s kid myself and being all too aware of how delicate these matters can be, both for the church as well as for the pastor’s family hanging in the balance.  All that said, I raised a question about the “philosophy of raises” for pastoral staff, which was quickly fielded by several responses from members of the White Oak session.  The most striking thing about the dialogue was that the idea of a “philosophy” of compensation increase almost appeared to be a new idea to some. 

What is the right way to compensate pastors, as well as to raise their earnings year after year?  My own conviction on the matter is pretty simple:  the governing body (in a Presbyterian church, that would be the Session) has to measure performance based on the expectations and requirements as defined by the pastor’s job description.  Of course, that assumes there is such a thing as a job description, which I have discovered over the years isn’t a fair assumption to make.  But, assuming that ALL pastoral staff members have job descriptions, what then is fair when it comes to pay raises?  Straight percentage across the board for all?  I’ve been part of a church whose standard practice was to issue the greatest percentage increase to the senior minister year after year after year.  Everyone else got a lower percentage, and it didn’t do anything good for the staff morale.  I suggest that churches give their pastors raises annually based on performance as outlined in the written job description, and have the systems in place (e.g., performance categories such as “satisfactory” “exceptional,” etc.) that makes it clear what it will take for the pastor to “earn” their annual raise.  And, I would aim for parity across the board in terms of a percentage.  If the senior minister gets a 7% raise and did so by virtue of permorming satisfactorily, then the associate ministers ought to get the same % increase if they scored the “satisfactory.”  For pastors who perform exceptionally, then that ought to factor into the raises each year, but in a different way.  Parity in the standard raise for ALL staff is important for good staff morale, but churches ought to encourage individual performance by promising the possibility of an additional bonus for performance that goes above and beyond.  I don’t have all this worked out, and I certainly don’t have all the answers to all the complexities.  But this is a start. 

Why blog about this?  Here’s why:  most pastors are not compensated fairly compared to the laymen who make up the church’s governing body.  Let’s be honest with ourselves, folks.  Those of us who are laymen just don’t think about this issue enough.  We have bought into the view that “you don’t go into ministry for the pay,” thus we barely take passing glance at what our ministers are making each year at budget time, and RARELY, if ever, do we ask them if their material needs are being met.  Pastors and their families have to live in the same expensive communities we do in order to continue doing ministry for us.  Here’s an idea:  what if each governing member (e.g., the elders, trustees, or deacons, depending on who qualifies as “governing” in your tradition) of your church got together and said “hey, let’s pay the pastor the average of what we as a group take home!”  I suspect that, whatever church of which you’re a member, your pastor’s salary would take quite a jump.  Unrealistic?  Hardly.  My wife and I worshipped at a PCA church in TX for two years that compensated their (solo) pastor using that formula.  It was the right thing to do, and it required vision and follow-through on the part of the church leadership.