Pastor's Salaries

[pastorables]

I had a person tell me once that a pastor shouldn't make over $50,000 for a yearly income. Do you agree or disagree? What should determine a pastor's income and benefits?

pastorables

[Gerald Creasy]

I believe there should be no limit.

If I was pastoring and received an extraordinary amount I would definitely find something productive (charity or church work wise) in which to invest.

[Paully_44]

I had a person tell me once that a pastor shouldn't make over $50,000 for a yearly income. Do you agree or disagree? What should determine a pastor's income and benefits?

pastorables

No, totally disagree. A pastor's income or benefits should not be capped or limited.

[justsam]

Imagine that a pastor told a church: I am only going to do $50,000.00 a year's worth of productive work, no matter how much you pay me(keep this in mind- person in the secular job market with a pastor's responsibilities would be paid significantly more than $50,000.00). What would the church say? Probably something like: we expect you to give the best effort you reasonably can. Why shouldn't a pastor be able to expect the church to give the best pay it reasonably can?

God Bless- Sam Smith

[Pastor Bill]

I think #s 5 & 6 would work well together, I don't know if I would agree with having no cap (because I have seen this really abused in other organizations) but I think cost of living and experience would be nice to take into consideration, but from what I have seen it may be more appropriate to set some bottom end limits, and get some larger churches to help out smaller ones. This might help cut down on "part-time" or bi-vocational pastors and with a little more time to dedicate to the church they may be able to grow.

[Pastor Bill]

Don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to sound like I was complaining, my church does all they can for me, and God has blessed me with a good job as well, but there are many who really are struggling.

[Ilovebigcats]

My feelings are every pastor should get the same. No matter what it is. If you have 100 churches in your organization they should receive the same pay. SO there is no politicing.

[The Martins]

My feelings are every pastor should get the same. No matter what it is. If you have 100 churches in your organization they should receive the same pay. SO there is no politicing.

So...a man could take a church with 25 members. Pastor for 10 years. Still has 25 members. Pastor makes $35,000 per year.

A man could take church with 25 members.
After 1 year - 50 members - all saved
After 2 years - 100 members - all saved
After 3 years - 250 members - all saved
After 4 years - 400 members - all saved
After 5 years - 750 members - all saved
After 10 years - 2000 members - all saved

Pastor makes $35,000 per year.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me

I don't believe there should be a limit. If he's grown the church like in the above example, he should be paid accordingly. $100,000 wouldn't be too much in my opinion. Or more. If there are abuses, the church is as much to blame as the pastor.

When I was in the CoGoP, our church was a "limit-paying church." However, we also gave a nice 1st Sunday offering, paid his insurances, provided a home, provided the utilities, provided a car allowance, etc. Any additional pay was listed under the 1st Sunday offering in order to work "within the system."

There should be no "limit" system to work within. It should be up to the local body.

Just my opinion.

[jdavis]

I don't think that a maximum should be inforced. A pastor should be paid at least enough to live as comfortably as most of his membership. Anything more than that should be up to the local congregation not the International offices.

jdavis

[Ilovebigcats]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me

Don't roll your eyes at me....
LOL
No, the pastor of the 2000 member church should have more coming in to divide EQUALLY between the 100 churches. Everyones salary goes up and and is equal. The pastor of the 25 members only church for 10 years, needs to prove his effort, which probably isn't much and be removed based on that. A pastor sitting still shouldn't remain a pastor.

The point is ~ for the GREAT pastor's that get sent to small churches that CAN'T put 100% in because they have to work a secular job because their is only $500 a month coming in...... AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Here's an example from TN. We have 2 friends that got sent out to pastor. Both to small towns.
Pastor A packed up his family to move 3 hours away for his first pastoral job. He went to a less then 10 member church and HAD to work a secular job because the church was dependent on the tithes to pay for their small store front. He couldn't find work enough to support his family there so he traveled 1 hour everyday (sometimes stayed there several days) just to get decent work with his wife's relative that lived down that way. He had no time to build the church and the memebrs were all old and couldn't do much themselves. ANd come to find out it was a problem church that is/has been/being disbanded. He went cause NO ONE else would. The big paycheck getting minister's that have these "large" churches didn't offer their excellent skills to that work. Pastor A is back where he came from and content with never pastoring again. Do you blame him? He is a great guy. sad...

Pastor B paked his family up to move an hour and a half away, to a even SMALLER town on top of a mountain with NO work even possible to sustain a family, to pastor his first church. He had help putting a trailer on the church property and lived there. He had an excellent job where he came from selling cars. There was only one car lot where he moved and they weren't hiring. Not to mention that his health got really bad at this time, probably due to depression. Needless to say his SMALL very POOR church he worked hard in, didn't grow because people there (in fact right next door to the church was a witch that had a visible sacrifice altar in her back yard) were heavily involved in witchcraft and such. Anyway, he lost EVERYTHING! His brand new nice van was repossessed that he got from his good job back where he came from and not long after his home was repossessed. He went down to nothing. He resigned, packed up, and moved back where he came from and is doing better now than he ever has working at a car lot, buying a huge house, and not pastoring anywhere.
This all leads to my point. The "large" churches in the state had surplus tithes they were sitting on. Or using it to "beautify" their buildings with grossly excessive amount of money for landscape and paved parking lots. Another Church would just decide in conference to give $10,000 out of surplus to Missions or whatever would get them recognition. IF all the tithes and offerings was received and given EQUALLY to the ministy then this would not have happened. SO what if one church had 8 members and another had 150. It's the same job. It removes politics. And you know the funny thing is the pastor's of the "large" churches didn't do as much as you'd think to get the members he had. The membership did most of it. In fact the 150 member church that can write out $10,000 checks has had 1 pastor always outta the country and he said he expects his ABM leaders to do most of the work, he just wants to show up to preach and the new pastor, you never see!

I say make them report and prove they're doing their job, OVERSEE!!! derrr! Andd pay them all equal only if they are doing their job. If they aren't get rid of them, after all don't we only want pastor's after David's heart?

Anyway, That's my thoughts.

[The Martins]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me

No, the pastor of the 2000 member church should have more coming in to divide EQUALLY between the 100 churches. Everyones salary goes up and and is equal.

Communism. Didn't work in the USSR. Won't work in the church. Besides, it doesn't make sense. Why would I work as a pastor to only give it away to churches that aren't working to grow? Nope.

The pastor of the 25 members only church for 10 years, needs to prove his effort, which probably isn't much and be removed based on that. A pastor sitting still shouldn't remain a pastor.

Or maybe there shouldn't be a church.

The point is ~ for the GREAT pastor's that get sent to small churches that CAN'T put 100% in because they have to work a secular job because their is only $500 a month coming in...... AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

It's not all his job. It's not mostly his job. It's mostly the members' jobs.

Here's an example from TN. We have 2 friends that got sent out to pastor. Both to small towns.
Pastor A packed up his family to move 3 hours away for his first pastoral job. He went to a less then 10 member church and HAD to work a secular job because the church was dependent on the tithes to pay for their small store front. He couldn't find work enough to support his family there so he traveled 1 hour everyday (sometimes stayed there several days) just to get decent work with his wife's relative that lived down that way. He had no time to build the church and the memebrs were all old and couldn't do much themselves. ANd come to find out it was a problem church that is/has been/being disbanded. He went cause NO ONE else would. The big paycheck getting minister's that have these "large" churches didn't offer their excellent skills to that work. Pastor A is back where he came from and content with never pastoring again. Do you blame him? He is a great guy. sad...

Probably should've never been a church to begin with.

Pastor B paked his family up to move an hour and a half away, to a even SMALLER town on top of a mountain with NO work even possible to sustain a family, to pastor his first church. He had help putting a trailer on the church property and lived there. He had an excellent job where he came from selling cars. There was only one car lot where he moved and they weren't hiring. Not to mention that his health got really bad at this time, probably due to depression. Needless to say his SMALL very POOR church he worked hard in, didn't grow because people there (in fact right next door to the church was a witch that had a visible sacrifice altar in her back yard) were heavily involved in witchcraft and such. Anyway, he lost EVERYTHING! His brand new nice van was repossessed that he got from his good job back where he came from and not long after his home was repossessed. He went down to nothing. He resigned, packed up, and moved back where he came from and is doing better now than he ever has working at a car lot, buying a huge house, and not pastoring anywhere.

Again, probably should've never been a church to begin with.

This all leads to my point. The "large" churches in the state had surplus tithes they were sitting on. Or using it to "beautify" their buildings with grossly excessive amount of money for landscape and paved parking lots.

Good for them! Maybe they'll reach some more people because their building is presentable.

Another Church would just decide in conference to give $10,000 out of surplus to Missions or whatever would get them recognition.

How do you know their motives? Usually, churches that give large amounts to missions grow. That's because they're thinking "outreach" instead of "Us 4 and no more."

IF all the tithes and offerings was received and given EQUALLY to the ministy then this would not have happened.

Communism.

SO what if one church had 8 members and another had 150. It's the same job.

No, it's not the same job. 150 members takes a lot more work. 8 takes almost none.

It removes politics. And you know the funny thing is the pastor's of the "large" churches didn't do as much as you'd think to get the members he had. The membership did most of it.

That's EXACTLY as it should be!

In fact the 150 member church that can write out $10,000 checks has had 1 pastor always outta the country

Doing what? Outreach? Missions? G R E A T !

and he said he expects his ABM leaders to do most of the work, he just wants to show up to preach

Good for him!

and the new pastor, you never see!

Are you saying he never works? I'd have to know more to make a judgement - and even then, I probably wouldn't.

I say make them report and prove they're doing their job, OVERSEE!!! derrr!

That's up to the local body.

Andd pay them all equal only if they are doing their job.

Communism

If they aren't get rid of them, after all don't we only want pastor's after David's heart?

Amen!

Anyway, That's my thoughts.

[THE RAzEr]

I am no longer a Pastor. I was for 32 years and i was basically full time for 27 years.

In this time , I worked with in the COGOP system. I obeyed the State Overseers. I spent many years in "limit" paying churches. I pastored also for $75-125 a month.

I seen times of growth and times when it was mean, lean and dry. I have seen churches of 35-40 go to 200-250 in the COGOP where i pastored. I have seen it go the downward way also. In both situations, I worked and prayed. It seemed to me that my job was to water and to plant and it was God's choice to give the increase.

However, it was a system of men, and it was built upon the idea that certain men could get the job done. there was a continual game of musical CHAIRmanship as far as pastors were concerned.

As far as who is worth the most, I do not know. I do know who works the hardest. I have been there. A man or woman pastoring a church with 200 does not have to work as hard as one pastoring forty. I think I will be mis understood hear unless I add that both pastors in this case are trying to build a church.

There delegating responsibilities a pastor of a larger church has more people he can delegate to. It depends upon the church people however. I remember one church where one particular Sunday we had 165 that morning. I had four or five deacons. There were probally about 20-25 men members there. I was preaching when a kid came up and handed me a note. It said, "Brother Ammons, the men's toilet is overflowing, you need to do something about it". The note was signed by a deacon. It was difficult to delegate at that particular congregation. I take solice in the fact that I was not the only pastor to find it that way.

However most of the time, I found it was at the smaller church that i had more to do. The bills still had to be paid. I guess if I had known other churches were calling on the state office, i would have been tempted at times, but that little secret was kelpt well from me. So, we raised it. sorta like Paul sowing tents, I guess! When the toilet need repair, or the floors need waxed, or the song books need mending, or birds are in the bell fry, etc. The pastor of the small church is responsible, even if he has been at the hospital all night long.

Now, to the idea of salary. There is not a cap on it in the COGOP at this time. Alarger church can increase what has been known in the past as the limit. It is a good idea. If the church believes the pastor should get more, the church should have this right, and it does. The problem is who is going to get the ball rolling. Many times the pastr has more sense than to do this. And many times the oversseer does not appreciate his sleep being distubed by the phone calls he is about to get, becaUSE OF THIS MONEY GRUBBING PASTOR who thought sense the church has grown 50-150%, may be the church would provide medical insurance. So, who decides if there is an increase. The same folks who decide if there is a new pastor. In many cases that was decided when the subject came up!

The ones who really have only one option is the Pastor of the smaller church. You see, when a church has to struggle just to keep its doors open, there are alot of things it can not do. One of those is to increase the pastor's pay. So, some may say let the pastor build the chursh. Well, that is god's job, but I think I know what they mean. The problem is that the pastor has to keep the church's bills, and his personal bills paid. If the church ever gets "extra" money, they need it to replace the ragged carpet, the piano that came over on the Mayflower, to buy matches to burn down the outhouse, to replace the floor Uncle Whoever busted through when he was under the spirit in 1953, or (if the church is up and coming) to build a parking lot. The pastor is offered a church where he can get more finance for his family and still preach the gospel, and he takes it. The problem is, if the pastor is not extremely careful, he gets caught up in the system and becomes a hierling.

Suggestions? They have been made! They have been made to Committees of the General Assembly (COGOP) and on the GA floor. I suggest that there be a flooring for pastors. A person who is willing to pastor a small church and give it his all, shold be paid at least enough to support his family. If he is not worth that, then why is he pastoring? If the church is not worth a a pastor worth that, then why do they not join with another congregation

[James]

My home church, Abundant Life Church, is an independent church. Pastor Davis' "salary" grows as the congregation grows, but it would also decrease if the congregation decreased. Pastor and his wife share the Senior Pastorate position. They recieve a percentage (15%, I think) of the tithes. We have 500 members. Most do pay their "tithe", I can't say all give 10% exactly. Some honestly feel they can't contribute the entire 10% of their income, however we do have quite a few (20 - 25%) that actually pay more as their tithe (it is rumored that one family pays 25%).
I voted in favor of no limit. The system we use works good for us. This actually helps the church as a whole. With no "set amount" salary, if the congregation did happen to decrease we wouldn't have to struggle to pay pastor or call a meeting to re-negotiate the pastor's salary. A pay cut? As the church prospers, so do our pastors.

[dolfan]

I suggest that there be a flooring for pastors. A person who is willing to pastor a small church and give it his all, shold be paid at least enough to support his family. If he is not worth that, then why is he pastoring? If the church is not worth a a pastor worth that, then why do they not join with another congregation

What truth!! If I had to criticize the COGOP for anything at all, the pastoring situation would be #1-10. Get qualified pastors and guarantee them a living wage. Now, I'm not in favor of the government doing this (the whole min. wage vs. living wage debate), but among God's people, God's people should see that the laborer in vocational ministry gets paid a decent wage. That may mean curving minimums for different areas of the country to produce equity. A small church in California or Hawaii is always going to be require more salary to pastor than the same sized church in Alabama because the cost of living is so much higher.

The practice of putting warm bodies behind a pulpit just to have a pastor should stop. If you can't bring a qualified pastor to a local church, there must be enough problems with the very existence of that local church to bring serious question whether it should even be organized as a recognized 'church' within the larger system. And, if you can get a qualified pastor but can't pay him/her a living wage, the same thing is true. Obviously there is no local support for the pastor. Either the higher-ups need to develop a way to subsidize the salary until specific growth and giving goals can be reached to bring about self-support from the church (and if they fail, disband), or they need to insist that churches not be organized and no pastor appointed or hired under the denom. auspices until the church can either support or realistically plan for support within a short time frame.

[Ilovebigcats]

Communism. Didn't work in the USSR. Won't work in the church. Besides, it doesn't make sense.

Communism? Wont work? That's your opinion. It works great for the Salvation Army.

I wont go into your other comments, you seem closed minded to everything but your idea. I am for whatever works best for everybody ~ pastor, church, and sinner. There is a Bible Plan. God didn't leave us without this one thing. It happens to be my opinion that it is all things common.

Razer I appreciate your comments! You are VERY RIGHT in that it doesn't matter if you have 10 members or 150 members, the job is the same. 10 members EVERYTHING falls on the pastor (and wife) plus a secular job. 150 members and you have more visiting and watching and delgating. It is 50/50. It should be equal.

Also, let's not forget it is NOT a USA church. What about the dear pastors oversees that have starving members and has to travel miles on foot and simply asks for a bicycle to help him on his journeys? Shouldn't he deserve equal? Those churches usally have over 100 members, yet make pennies in income. Doesn't he deserve the same as others? Yet where does his $100,000 salary come from? How much good could it do these people to get the same as their American Brothers in their dollar amount? I WOULD SAY that they work alot harder than any American is willing to and for what? Enough money to buy rice for a year? DO you not think he shares what he does get with his starving people? So he has even less than we might think.
Imagine being in an Orphange in Haiti. Not enough food for all those children.
Imagine being the newly saved mountain people in the Philipines. Satan tempting them to go back to cannablism (sp) because there is no other meat to eat. How much could equal tithes do for them? Has Satan ever tempted you to eat a man? No because your needs are met. We don't know what it is to want. And many ministers due to politics will never know what it is like to pastor the small church.
Doesn't the scripture say that God is no respecter of persons. Tell that to the ministers oversees when you explain to them that you want there vote for no salary cap. You want as much as you can get and let him get as much as he can too.

*Stepping off the soap box now and giving it back to AmyDawn for later use, telling her thanks for letting me borrow it!*