Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I believe our pastor makes 28K.  Now this doesn't include the pasonage
    or the electricity.  Do I think it's just right?  I'm not sure.  I
    think so.  It seems to be commensurate with people of his
    qualifications.
    
    -Jack

    What would qualify a pastor to make 57K, not including housing allowance
    and other benefits?
    
    Richard
    

    My guess is that if you include the housing, insurance, utilities, and
    all other incidentals, then a pastor like mine would be equal to about
    57K.  Of course there are hidden costs in working at DEC as well.  We
    don't think about all the extras but they add up.
    
    -Jack

    We just approved allowing the search committee to offer a total package
    of $44,000 for the minister.   The package amount gets approved and
    then the committee and the minister can allocate the total between
    salary, housing allowance, retirement benefits etc.  It is the
    equivalent of salary + benefit cost.
    
    $44,000 is ridiculously low for a professional in the jobs.  It is
    lower than teachers, Middle managers, and a lot of other people.  What
    we look for is a professional public speaker, professional counsellor,
    a professional educator, and a professional program manager all roled
    into one.

| <<< Note 1192.2 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Ps. 85.10" >>>

| What would qualify a pastor to make 57K, not including housing allowance
| and other benefits?

	To be part of the Bakker ministries? :-)

ZZ    $44,000 is ridiculously low for a professional in the jobs.  It is
ZZ    lower than teachers, Middle managers, and a lot of other people.  
    
    Oh thanks, I really feel wonderful now! :-)

I would think several things would come into play when determining the
total benefits package for a pastor. Chief among these is the cost of 
living in the area where the church is located, and the approximate income
levels of the congregants. I think that a pastor should not have to be
struggling to make ends meet with a benfits package far below the level
common for the area and necessary to meet the cost of living in the area.
Pastors should not be impoverished. They should be compensated fairly for
the amount of time they must put into their pastoral responsibilities which
I would guess far exceeds 40 hours per week. The size of the congregation
would be another factor.

Leslie

    44K would mean about 35K for salary and housing allowance plus 9K for 
    SS, health insurance, retirement, etc.
    
    This is for experienced professionals and not entry level.
    
    The minimum education for the job is a bachelors degree plus 3 years
    of Graduate education to get the MDiv degree plus an intership and a
    pastoral studies field education placement.

    
    I suppose the question is: are the clergy just another worldly
    professional group like lawyers, business managers and professors. Is
    it a job or a mission?

    If I were a professional minister, I do not think I'd feel right seeking
    an income greater than most of the households in my care.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

 Right Richard.  That's why the income level & number of people in the 
 congregation would be a factor in determining the salary.

 Leslie

    Richard,
    
    If you were a pastor, how would you feel making much less than most of
    the people in your congregation?
    
                                           Patricia

    I wonder.  What was Jesus' salary?

.12

>    If you were a pastor, how would you feel making much less than most of
>    the people in your congregation?

Well, I guess it would depend on other factors, but I don't think I mind
making a little less.  In fact, it might make a prophetic witness easier.

Shalom,
Richard

.13

>    I wonder.  What was Jesus' salary?

Good question.

    re .15
    
    >>Good question
    
    We know the answer.  I brought up the point to indicate that maybe
    pastors/ministers/priests are supposed to live in material poverty
    as did Jesus.  Or that any "compensation" should come in the form 
    of charity.   The discussion thus far would leave me to believe that
    we're talking about some sort of professional occupation, one that
    commands a certain salary and demands a certain high level of formal
    education (neither of which Jesus had or required).
    
    -dave

    dave,
    
    I don't recall Jesus addressing that issue. 
    
    But what did Paul say about the issue?
    
                                       Patricia

    Judas was in fact the treasurer for the apostles and therefore since
    there was a keeper for the money, it would seem that salary wasn't an
    issue since the money came from love offerings.  They got the money and
    spent it as necessity warranted it.  
    
    I believe Paul put forth the idea that missions and missionaries were
    to be supported by the local church.  It probably wasn't laid out as a
    salary so much as it was a budget.  In other words, they determined a
    cost and the church gave according to the need.  My guess is Paul
    didn't accumulate any wealth and used anything he had for the cause of
    the ministry.  
    
    -Jack

    I think there's a difference between a minister/priest getting enough
    money to survive and compensating him/her as just another lay professional
    out to make a buck.  The apostles didn't appear to care a hell of a lot 
    about money outside the fact that it could provide food, shelter and other 
    basics needed to survive.  Contrast that with compensation which
    exceeds basic needs.  And contrast this with Farwell and Graham and the 
    like who are multi millionaires.   Getting back to the New Testament,
    if Jesus was a living example of how we should live, how far have 
    ministers of the Gospel (not to mention the rest of us) drifted from the 
    mark?
    
    -dave
    

    
    One of this morning's news programs, I don't remember which one, listed
    the growth jobs in the next year. Surprisingly, 'pastor' was listed as
    growing occupation, particularly in the south and Bible Belt regions.
    The average salary was listed at $28,000.

    Eric 

Z    And contrast this with Farwell and Graham and the 
Z    like who are multi millionaires.
    
    Small nit.  I believe Billy Graham actually makes a modest salary
    considering all the travel he does.  If he is in fact a millionaire, it
    is most likely due to his book writing, which of course is separate
    from the Billy Graham Ministry.
    
    I see the ministry in the same light as the Levitical Priesthood of
    old.  If one is going into the ministry with the hopes of benies,
    salary and the like, then they are going into it for the wrong reasons.
    There is nothing wrong with it; however, one who strives to be a
    minister must be as Paul. "I have learned to be abased and I've learned
    to abound."  Paul knew what comfort was but he also knew the depths of
    poverty.  He finishes by saying that in whatever condition he learned
    to be content.
    
    -Jack

Speaking as a preacher's kid/missionary kid, while we didn't exactly live
in the lap of luxury my parents did raise five children and put us all
through college (with help from financial aid and student loans).  It's
all very well to say that ministers and priests should live in poverty but
it becomes difficult when there are several mouths to feed.

I remember one of the teachings of the Methodist church being the
priesthood of all believers.  If that's the case, why should only ordained
ministers have to live a life of poverty?  Shouldn't this apply to *all*
believers, at least in the Methodist church?

It seems to me that only people who voluntarily live in poverty themselves
have the moral standing to ask other people to do so.

Just some random musings.

				-- Bob

Paul seems to have relied on his skills as a tentmaker to earn a living.
He probably accepted hospitality, but I don't recall him accepting any
donations of money for his own support.

I do recall Paul's fundraising efforts for the poor in Jerusalem.

And while incarcerated, of course, Paul was simply another burden on
the taxpayers.

Shalom,
Richard

    Oh...I don't think poverty is a necessity by any means.  Guess I was
    just saying if one enters the ministry, one should not necessarily set
    any expectations.
    
    I believe all ministers should be well taken care of if possible so
    that they can be well fit for the work!
    
    -Jack

    But the New Testament teachings are clear.  
      "Give up all that you have and folow me"
      "...the lillies of the field..."
      "You cannot serve two masters"
      etc...
    (very difficult to follow, but clear in meaning and stated several
    different times and in several different ways)
    
    You have three choices.
     1) follow the teachings in the clear sense they were stated.
     2) don't follow the teachings and admit that you don't.
     3) play interpretational gymnastics with them until you can somehow
        claim to be a follower while still reaping, and keeping, a good 
        salary.
    
    Jesus set the example.  The apostles followed in his footsteps,
    scavanging around for the food/shelter they needed and spent most of
    their time spreading the Gospel.  In a sense, the members of the
    Roman Catholic clergy "own nothing", yet they do not live in abject 
    poverty. (adnittedly, the catholic church itself has large sums). 
    Should not all christian ministers/pastors/priests follow suit?  What's 
    fair or practical or humane or reasonable has nothing to do with it.
    The New Testament is clear on this, especially to those who were to
    follow Jesus in spreading the word.
    
    Personally, I don't care.  I just see unresolved hypocricy in this
    matter.
    
    -dave
    
    
    
    

.22

>I remember one of the teachings of the Methodist church being the
>priesthood of all believers.  If that's the case, why should only ordained
>ministers have to live a life of poverty?  Shouldn't this apply to *all*
>believers, at least in the Methodist church?

Since it is a teaching echoed in Scripture, it should be given more attention
than it is.

>It seems to me that only people who voluntarily live in poverty themselves
>have the moral standing to ask other people to do so.

I know people who live in voluntary poverty.  They are certainly set apart.

Shalom,
Richard

    The beauty of living in poverty is that it builds character and
    perseverance.  Also, it buffets the will into submitting to God for the
    most basic of needs.
    
    Dave, regarding the hypocrisy thing.  It seems you equate poverty to
    godliness which isn't the case at all.  If you consider Pauls letter to
    Philemon, Philemon was a wealthy individual, a believer, who owned much
    property.  God uses the wealthy to glorify himself as well.
    
    The idea of giving all you have was directed toward the apostles, who
    were in essence missionaries without a home.  The idea of giving of all
    you have is of course a test of real faith, but it does not preclude
    godlessness.  Ananias and Sapphira for example in the beginning of the
    book of Acts, were a part of the Church.  They did not give of all they
    had and subsequently died; however they were struck by God for lying
    about it, not because they didn't give.  It isn't the wealth that
    causes one to be worldly, it is how wealth is applied to their
    priorities.  Unfortunately, wealth is a great detractor from walking
    with God and this is why Jesus warned so much against it.
    
    -Jack

    
    > The beauty of living in poverty is that it builds character and
    > perseverance.  Also, it buffets the will into submitting to God for the
    > most basic of needs.

    I thought it created welfare queens, crack-heads, and gangs... :^)

    I would agree with your statement if you replaced 'poverty' with
    'self-imposed poverty' as in a monastic order or sisterhood. Poverty
    thrust upon you just plain stinks.

    Eric

    Right...that was exactly what I meant.  Self imposed poverty.  There is
    actually NO beauty in living in poverty at all.  It can still build
    perseverance but overall, poverty stinks.
    
    -Jack

    Re .27 .... Jack
    
    >>It seems you equate poverty to godliness which isn't the case at all.
    
    Well, I was citing (to the best of my ability) New Testament
    passages which did... or at least seemed to.  What were some of the
    others... 
    
     "...easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle..."
     "...he sold all that he had (to buy a pearl of great value)..." 
     "...give him your cloak as well..."
     "...give freely and you shall recieve..."
     (and my favorite)
     "...the first shall be last and the last first..." 
    
    With even my crude recollection of New Testament passages, it seems
    that the list goes on and on.  As I said, the message is clear.  Jesus 
    was pointing the way with his right hand, then his left, then one foot,
    then the other.. in Hebrew, then in Latin, in the rain, at again at 
    night... on and on and on.  I don't think it would be too presumptuous 
    to suppose this was one of the main themes of his teachings (although
    we conveniently would like to think otherwise).
    
    Jesus did not specifically say that it was impossible to retain wealth
    (beyond needs) and be godly.  Thus there's room for an interpretational
    "end-run" around the issue.  What Paul had to say might be interesting,
    but (IMO) it's secondary to the word of Jesus himself.  
    
    Now, I can understand why people collect wealth beyond their needs.  I
    can also understand why people do a lot of other things that aren't
    quite in keeping with Jesus' teachings.  And I feel compassion and
    acceptance for sinners who bow their heads when admitting their
    shortcommings because they admit that they're imperfect people who have
    difficulty staying on the straight and narrow.  It's just that I think
    keeping wealth beyond one's needs should be viewed as behavior
    dissuaded by Jesus' teachings, a deviation from the straight and
    narrow, something which practicing christians should at least admit
    is... well... you choose the adverb that you think fits best.
    
    -dave
                                                                 

I think there is a huge difference between poverty and what you people
seem to be talking about. Poverty is a grinding, long-term situation
with little hope for improvement where you don't have warm clothes, and
sometimes have to go without food. Poverty is frightening and paralyzing.
The monks who took a vow of poverty are not really impoverished at all.
They may not have many personal possessions, but they have a bed, a home,
and food to eat. They are not struggling for survival.

Leslie

    Francis of Assisi spoke of Lady Poverty with love.
    

    The "live in poverty" philosophy never made sense to me.  I mean how
    would the people in the world eat if everyone was just standing around, 
    "like lillies in the field", surviving on handouts.  Handouts from whom?
    
    Neither does the "turn the other cheek" philosophy make much sense in
    terms of survival. Natural Selection would see to it that this behavior
    would not survive very long.  
    
    One thing that marks Jesus' teachings are their radical departure from
    the common sense, dog-eat-dog animal world we appear to live in.  
    
    -dave
    
    

    .33
    
    Precisely.
    
    There are some who'll try to pragmatize such teachings, but they're
    just forcing the pieces to fit.
    
    I do know a handful of people who do live in voluntary poverty and
    have adopted nonviolence as a way of life.  I don't know how they make
    it work.  They're looked upon by others as eccentrics, a quirky rag-tag
    band.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    I was thinking, fasting is in a way a form of poverty in a sense that
    it is self denial.  Jesus looked upon fasting as an important part of
    one's prayer life.  
    
    -Jack

Suppose a pastor accepted a position to serve a church at a certain salary,
but then the membership and contributions dropped dramatically.

Suppose the salary agreed upon could no longer be met.

What would you expect of the pastor?  What would you expect of the
congregation?

Shalom,
Richard

    Maybe they should form a union?  

Well, since it is usually a contractual arrangement, the pastor has the
right to leave the floundering congregation in favor of one that will meet
its commitments, does she not?

Richard

    It is a contractual arrangement.  The church is committed to pay the
    salary for the duration of the contract.  My church has a annual
    contract with the minister.  THe Board of directors with the Minister
    would discuss the issue together.  The director of Leadership of the
    church and the Minister would discuss any renegotiated contract,
    
    More important both the Board of Directors and the Minister would
    jointly work the issue of the drop in membership and contributions.
    
    If the problem could not be fixed, the BOD would probably want to take
    permanent action anyway.  I.E. restructure the congregation and/or hire
    a new minister.

If a congregation loses members, the board goes out and hires another pastor.

Doesn't this tend to affect what the pastor is willing to preach.  I believe that
this would put pressure on him to stay with "safe" sermons.
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    Congregational style churches, which include both the Unitarian
    Universalist Church and the United Church of Christ which are democratic in
    nature, trust the cummulative faith and aspirations of all the
    members.
    
    The minister, as the spiritual leader and as the professional Manager
    of the Congregation, shares authority with the President of the Church
    and the Board of Directors.
    
    The minister and the Board of Directors are partners.  The minister is
    the Senior Partner in matters spiritual.  The President and the BOD are
    senior partners in matters physical and financial.
    
    These churches put their trust in the democratic process.  A church
    that is strong and healthy will grow.  A church that is not strong,
    will dwindle.  When that happens, both the BOD and the Minister
    together need to take corrective action.  There are also resources
    available in the Unitarian Universalist Association for UU's and in the
    UCC organization for that group to help assess the problem and to help
    overcome it.
    
    At times, the best course of action is for the Congregation to replace
    it's minister.  That is something that is not done lightly and that is
    usually not done without the help and counsel of the UUA.
    
    Unitarian Universalists believe that the risks in a democratic
    organization are much less than the risks in an authoritarian
    organization.  We tend to believe that power corrupts and absolute
    power corrupts absolutely.
    
    I personally would not belong to a church that was not democratic in
    its organization.
    
                                        Patricia

Thanks for your comments.  Let me pose a realistic scenerio:

A new pastor comes into a small, struggling congregation.  Thru the extensive use of 
"music ministry", people begin coming to the church.  His focus becomes the --
how shall I call it -- entertainment side, with lights and an extensive sound system
replacing the humble pulpit that once was there.  Slowly but surely the entertainment 
replaces the solid word of God.

Have you seen this happen?
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

re Note 1192.42 by NETRIX::"[email protected]":

> A new pastor comes into a small, struggling congregation.  Thru the extensive use of 
> "music ministry", people begin coming to the church.  His focus becomes the --
> how shall I call it -- entertainment side, with lights and an extensive sound system
> replacing the humble pulpit that once was there.  Slowly but surely the entertainment 
> replaces the solid word of God.
  
        I've never seen it replacing preaching and teaching (I assume
        that that is what you mean by "the solid word of God"), but I
        certainly have gone into many churches where equal energy
        goes into both.  Quite frankly, I am turned off by this; but
        that may just be a matter of taste.

        Bob

    I have visited churches that have fallen into the trap of fan fare and 
    show.  Churches can forget at times that when we sing, we are singing
    to the most high.  Should a child feel haughty and proud because they
    can sing Rock a bye baby to their mom and dad?  A child wouldn't
    consider it.  
    
    -Jack

    I guess the scenario could happen in an authoritarian church where the
    people come to be told what they need spiritually.
    
    All my church experience has been in churches where all the people come
    together voluntarily  as equals to create a spiritual community where
    everyone uplifts everyone else.
    
    My experience is that people participate in spiritual communities
    because there is something very important generated within the
    spiritual community.
    
    All the members want the community to be a healthy community and most
    are excellent at recognizing whether it is healthy or not.  Thus stuff
    of the community certainly includes the music program, but much more is
    needed by all.

    I have seen it to happen most in Ecumenical churches and Pentacostal
    churches.  This has been my experience.
    
    -Jack

The questions in .0 and .36 are based in an actual situation.

It's really not very likely that the root problem lies in the sermons.

Peace,
Richard

>Do you know your pastor's annual salary and benefits?

 mine makes right around 25K, including a car, insurance, and tuition
 for courses/seminars and expenses for travel if required.  His house
 is paid for from his previous occupation as an executive with an
 airline.


>Do you think it's just right?  Not enough?  Too much?

 I don't understand how he lives on it, but he is quite content.  He 
 continually turns down raises at each annual meeting.  We propose and
 approve raises..he kicks them back.

>How much would be too much?

 It would depend on the size of the congregation.  He has a family to
 take care of (though most of my pastor's are grown and have children
 of their own) and is entitled to live comfortably, IMO.



 Jim (who hasn't read all the replies).

 I can't believe I was so foolish to wonder how my pastor lives on his
 salary.  God is taking care of him as He promised.  My pastor tithes (gives
 10%) supports missions and is the most giving, loving man I know.  This
 last 2 weeks as I have been struggling with issues surrounding my yougest
 son, he has been there any time I called, and my needs are minor compared
 to those of other members of the church.



 Jim

>    But the New Testament teachings are clear.  
>      "Give up all that you have and folow me"
>      "...the lillies of the field..."
>      "You cannot serve two masters"
>      etc...
>    (very difficult to follow, but clear in meaning and stated several
>    different times and in several different ways)
 
    Hi Dave!
    
    The meanings are clear but they are not clear when taken out of their
    immediate and broader context.  Certainly your conclusion is simple, as
    is your reading, but inaccurate, I'm afraid.
    
    jeff