Church budget dwindling

[abcgrad94]

It's reality, and if one needs to pick up a part time to recoup the salary, that's when leaders need to be formed and groomed to pick up the slack until a full time salary is in order.

The OP has already indicated his church needs volunteers to cut the grass. In theory, it would be great if everyone would step up and help out more, but in reality, that probably won't happen in the OP's church. Here's why. Small churches usually mean fewer men to pick up the slack. Small churches also have big expectations of their pastors. They like the closeness of having the pastor there for them at every turn. Unless this is a very spiritually mature congregation, they are not going to be happy or understanding when the pastor can't be there to kiss their boo-boos every day. If the men aren't already helping out, they aren't suddenly going to decide to do so.

His wife isn't going to be happy when he can't say no (most pastors hate to say no because they love their flock) to the congregation and continues to give the same amount of time to the church, causing her and the kids to get the short end of the stick.

The church has increased giving to missions and other areas, so why must the pastor be the first to get his paycheck whacked? Missionaries are great, but the church should first support the one who is caring for them.

The wife has already indicated her feelings of how the members live and how they treat the pastor and his family. For me, that says it all. She already feels taken for granted. That's a huge red flag there that tells me things aren't going to change for the better for the church simply because the pastor takes on another job.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Christ does not ask that those believing in him give only 10%. Christ asks that we commit all of our life to him, and money is part of our life. So giving 10% is getting off rather inexpensively.

Remember what he told the rich young ruler?

Where did He tell the Church to give 10%? I must have missed that verse.

 

[Revmitchell]

Any increase in a budget needs to begin with what is going on inside the church first. Maintaining the pastors salary should be first priority. But if the pastor is the only paid position then the care of the grounds should fall to him as well if need be.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Where did He tell the Church to give 10%? I must have missed that verse.

Jesus did not found a church, so there was no church for him to tell. The Christian church was started after his ascension.

Look at the teaching of Jesus. He asks for our total dedication. Your, my money are part of that dedication.

Long ago I heard a preacher say, "If you want to find out which Baptists are really Christian tell them that 90% of their money will be taken away unless they renounce Christ. Then we would see how many are left."

Matthew 6:24

New International Version
"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

New Living Translation
"No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

King James 2000 Bible
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

American King James Version
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

 

[webdog]

The OP has already indicated his church needs volunteers to cut the grass. In theory, it would be great if everyone would step up and help out more, but in reality, that probably won't happen in the OP's church. Here's why. Small churches usually mean fewer men to pick up the slack. Small churches also have big expectations of their pastors. They like the closeness of having the pastor there for them at every turn. Unless this is a very spiritually mature congregation, they are not going to be happy or understanding when the pastor can't be there to kiss their boo-boos every day. If the men aren't already helping out, they aren't suddenly going to decide to do so.

His wife isn't going to be happy when he can't say no (most pastors hate to say no because they love their flock) to the congregation and continues to give the same amount of time to the church, causing her and the kids to get the short end of the stick.

The church has increased giving to missions and other areas, so why must the pastor be the first to get his paycheck whacked? Missionaries are great, but the church should first support the one who is caring for them.

The wife has already indicated her feelings of how the members live and how they treat the pastor and his family. For me, that says it all. She already feels taken for granted. That's a huge red flag there that tells me things aren't going to change for the better for the church simply because the pastor takes on another job.

The bolded is concerning. Giving should be taken away from missions first?! Where in the first church in Acts did the people sell their possessions to meet the needs first of the pastor? I was always under the impression the church was formed to be the catalyst of the gospel first and meet the needs of the whole church second, not just one man.

Also, cutting the grass is considered serving, not leading. Sounds like that church needs both leaders and those willing to serve. Most people in the church nowadays are mere sponges.

 

[SmalltownPastor]

Maybe another way to go about the business meeting idea is to ask for the authority to appoint a 3-5 person group who would study how to cut down on spending while increasing giving.

I think this is exactly what we're going to do. I'm calling the treasurer today to get the ball rolling.

We went through this a few years ago. The treasurer was having kittens over the budget and had fussed over how we were going to pay the Pastor (thank you) and the rest of our expenses. We're a church plant, I'm bi-vo and we are a frugal bunch. That said the solution was simple.

1. We are going to trust God. From the widow's mite to our greatest asset it's all His.

2. We made it a matter of prayer among the church leadership.

3. We let the congregation know what was going on. This was no TV preacher pleading for a faith seed. I didn't have any revelation that I was going to die if they didn't meet the budget.

I read from the Good Book

Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
2 Corinthians 9:7 NASB

I loved the way you put all that. I'm totally stealing from you.

In theory, it would be great if everyone would step up and help out more, but in reality, that probably won't happen in the OP's church. Here's why. Small churches usually mean fewer men to pick up the slack. Small churches also have big expectations of their pastors. They like the closeness of having the pastor there for them at every turn. Unless this is a very spiritually mature congregation, they are not going to be happy or understanding when the pastor can't be there to kiss their boo-boos every day. If the men aren't already helping out, they aren't suddenly going to decide to do so.

His wife isn't going to be happy when he can't say no (most pastors hate to say no because they love their flock) to the congregation and continues to give the same amount of time to the church, causing her and the kids to get the short end of the stick.

I do love my flock. They actually are quite spiritually mature. I don't have to put out many fires. People get along with one another. People serve. It's just that since we're fairly small, we get worn out more often since there are less people to do all the work. Cutting the grass is one of those things we're all just tired of.

It's nice to have a great big yard, but it takes almost a full day to cut with a push mower, and at least a couple hours with a riding mower. We actually did take turns cutting it a few summers ago. The problem wasn't the manpower, but the practically of it. People found it difficult to get their equipment there in order to mow. So eventually, one person took over the task, and after a couple summers, he resigned from it and we hired a lawn care service. This was the first summer we haven't done it ourselves.

The church has increased giving to missions and other areas, so why must the pastor be the first to get his paycheck whacked? Missionaries are great, but the church should first support the one who is caring for them.

We've increased giving to missions twice since I've come, both times at my request. I think a healthy church is also a generous church, and it sets a good example for all members that we shouldn't hoard all that God blesses us with. That being said, there is room to scale back our missions giving. Currently, we're giving 14.5% to outside entities. I'm going to suggest that we scale this back to 10%.

The wife has already indicated her feelings of how the members live and how they treat the pastor and his family. For me, that says it all. She already feels taken for granted. That's a huge red flag there that tells me things aren't going to change for the better for the church simply because the pastor takes on another job.

My wife doesn't have any hard feelings toward the church at this point. She mentioned that she'd feel hurt only IF they decrease our pay. As of right now, we're all good.

Sounds like that church needs both leaders and those willing to serve. Most people in the church nowadays are mere sponges.

There are very few sponges at this church. Most members serve in some way. It really is a good church. Not perfect, but I can't complain about the quality of Christians here.


Regarding the tithing issue, I know it's off topic, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents since I started this thread. My understanding of NT giving is that we're to give joyfully and sacrificially. The exact amount isn't the issue, but the heart is. That being said, I think there is something to giving a tenth of your income. I think it's a minimum. If we can't even give what the Jews were required by the Law to give, what does that say about our hearts?

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Regarding the tithing issue, I know it's off topic, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents since I started this thread. My understanding of NT giving is that we're to give joyfully and sacrificially. The exact amount isn't the issue, but the heart is. That being said, I think there is something to giving a tenth of your income. I think it's a minimum. If we can't even give what the Jews were required by the Law to give, what does that say about our hearts?

While the Jews were indeed required to give a tenth of their increase (not income), not all Jews were required to give that tenth... only the farmers and herders.

Even though all twelve tribes of Israel were "God's chosen people", only farmers and herders were required to tithe. And they didn't tithe to the Temple... the ministers of the Temple were the only ones required to tithe to the Temple. The Temple ministers would be the equivalent of the Church staff today.

To say that tithing is a good place to start for the congregation to start in their giving to the Church isn't even Biblical, given the fact that the congregation did not give tithes to the Temple.

 

[saturneptune]

Our church has one checking account that we use for everything. When I became the pastor 4 years ago, there was $19,000 in this account (which had grown that large because they were without a pastor for a couple years). It's now down to $5,000, which is approximately one month's of the church's expenses. So I'm getting pretty anxious.

I'm the second pastor they've tried to pay a "full-time" salary, and (at the time when I was called) they had a deficit of about $400/month.

Attendance and total offerings have increased. Compared to the first two years, we now have an average of $550/mo more in offerings. But we've also increased our missions giving, and salaries, and have added things like internet/wifi and lawn care service. So now the deficit (even after factoring in the increased giving) is on average about $600/mo.

I've done some maths and determined that we could save about $400/mo by having volunteers cut the grass (which we did last summer, but everyone grew tired of it), eliminating internet, and cutting back our missions giving. But this still leaves a deficit.

My family can't afford to take a reduction in salary unless I find a part-time job as well. I'm willing to do this, but my wife has mentioned to me that she would feel severely hurt by the church if they were to decrease our pay, since we see how church members live and it would show us that they don't truly value our family. I see her point.

Some in the church have mentioned fundraisers. I'm generally against this kind of thing, but even if I weren't, this seems more like a very temporary solution unless we wanted to have a huge fundraiser every month indefinitely.

I've thought about adding an online giving option, but I don't like that companies take at least 3% of what's given.

Do you have any advice?

Hello, and welcome to BB. I was going to relate what our local church is going through presently. By the way, your post is very well thought out and clear.

Each church is autonomous, and each local church sets its own course in determining a budget. Lots of issues in this area have hit our church at one time. We are now at the start of a process of picking a new pastor, as the former pastor resigned because of his wife's health. The faithful members of our church run about 55 in church on Sunday morning, and 40 on a good Sunday in Sunday School. We are an aging church, as I am 60, and one of the younger members. Our members do a wonderful job of giving, as most tithe and giving offerings above the tithe when needed. However, faithful giving does not make up for members dying forever. At some point, one reaches a point that they must look at the budget for answers. This is what we are now facing.

We have on staff a full time pastor and a full time custodian. Part time, we have a Choir Director, Music Director, and a Secretary. All other positions, those that cut the large yard, the instrumentalists, Sunday School Director, etc are all volunteer. Before our pastor left, the church cut the salary of the two music leaders and the pastor himself. We also cut back on the amount we give to the association and other ministries. This seems to have worked for the time being. Of course, all this will affect the selecting of a new pastor and his salary to a degree, but it should be close to the old pastor's salary.

Our next steps (and it is about that time of year for the Nominating Committee) is giving the Personnel Committee the task of making sure all salaries and benefits are correctly being administered for the paid positions other than pastor, which the Pastor Search Committee is taking care of. Also, the idea is being circulated to make sure members of the Finance Committee are not paid employees, or at least the defined positions as stated in the Constitution. Most churches and businesses limit those who are paid from making the personnel decisions. We will also be taking a look at the van routes that sometimes pick up one person for an entire route and the cost. For example, in that case, the members can pitch in and pick up that person on the way to church. Additions to the building and new plants for the church yard are something that can be delayed or modified.

Having said all of that, the ultimate solution is church growth. Cutting expenses is a temporary and frankly negative solution. Cutting budgets will not last forever, only delay the damage.

 

[abcgrad94]

The bolded is concerning. Giving should be taken away from missions first?! Where in the first church in Acts did the people sell their possessions to meet the needs first of the pastor? I was always under the impression the church was formed to be the catalyst of the gospel first and meet the needs of the whole church second, not just one man.

I'm not saying missions should be cut first, Web. But the church has a duty to care for the hand that feeds them. Too often, the pastor's pay is the FIRST to get cut when financial problems arise. It's a temporary "solution" for an ongoing problem, and when the pastor's salary gets cut, the problems can snowball for him and the church.

The pastor may be "one man" but he is the shepherd caring for the flock. If the church doesn't support him, they are shooting themselves in the foot. They are also harming the pastor's family if he cannot be there for them because he's too busy ruining his health in order to pay the bills.

 

[TadQueasy]

This type of thing is happening all over the country and will continue to do so.

Pastors and churches need to be praying about the best way to handle the situation. Ministry is changing. In the next 10-20 years the number of small town churches/rural churches that can afford a full time pastor is going to plummet fast.

Pastors need to go into ministry understanding that they very well may need to be bivocational throughout their entire ministry. Men should stop getting a education that is completely centered around bible college and seminary only. Get a degree that can be used in the secular world. Get a teaching degree. Get a nursing degree. Learn a valueable trade. Then go to seminary and get your theological training.

Churches need to understand that their pastors cannot sit in the office and do "church" stuff for 40-50 hours a week. They are going to have to have a pastor that is working in the secular world the majority of their church. This will take patience and a flexible spirit.

This can all be looked at as a problem. But I see it as a great opportunity. This can lead to healthier churches that are not pastor centered, but truly gospel centered and that work as a whole to fulfill the Great Commission.

 

[webdog]

I'm not saying missions should be cut first, Web. But the church has a duty to care for the hand that feeds them. Too often, the pastor's pay is the FIRST to get cut when financial problems arise. It's a temporary "solution" for an ongoing problem, and when the pastor's salary gets cut, the problems can snowball for him and the church.

The pastor may be "one man" but he is the shepherd caring for the flock. If the church doesn't support him, they are shooting themselves in the foot. They are also harming the pastor's family if he cannot be there for them because he's too busy ruining his health in order to pay the bills.

I agree with much that you have said, but I think each situation needs to be addressed on an individual basis. From what I have gathered over the years, its become some kind of standard for the paid staff salaries of the church to be between 60 - 75% of money brought in. Given this statistic, anyone holding to such standards should cut salary first in the budget. While a shepherd is an important part of the church, he makes up just one part of the body. Everything I have read concerning NT giving doesn't support the current corporate mentality of today's church. Giving was done to support the poor in furthering of the gospel, not to maintain lofty salaries and facilities. It ticks me of to see pie charts where 80% of the chart is shaded in with salaries, benefits and facilities...and tiny slivers for discipleship and missions while those who are called within the local church to go on mission trips soliciting those within and outside of the church for the funds to do what God has called them to do, which the church should be commissioned to do. I believe if Christ visited many of our local churches today the results would mirror the money table overturning He did in the temples. There is a difference in caring for your shepherds (plural, as outlined in the Bible) and making them into mini CEO's. IMO, ALL shepherds should be equally taken care of. I fail to see where one man receives a nice salary for holding a manmade title of 'senior pastor', another receive less as an 'associate pastor' and 2 others nothing as volunteer 'elders'. Paul's instructions to Timothy made no distinction between paid and volunteer status.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

This type of thing is happening all over the country and will continue to do so.

Pastors and churches need to be praying about the best way to handle the situation. Ministry is changing. In the next 10-20 years the number of small town churches/rural churches that can afford a full time pastor is going to plummet fast.

Pastors need to go into ministry understanding that they very well may need to be bivocational throughout their entire ministry. Men should stop getting a education that is completely centered around bible college and seminary only. Get a degree that can be used in the secular world. Get a teaching degree. Get a nursing degree. Learn a valueable trade. Then go to seminary and get your theological training.

Churches need to understand that their pastors cannot sit in the office and do "church" stuff for 40-50 hours a week. They are going to have to have a pastor that is working in the secular world the majority of their church. This will take patience and a flexible spirit.

This can all be looked at as a problem. But I see it as a great opportunity. This can lead to healthier churches that are not pastor centered, but truly gospel centered and that work as a whole to fulfill the Great Commission.

And I believe that is why Paul told the Elders to follow his example and work as he did.

Excellent post!!

 

[saturneptune]

I agree with much that you have said, but I think each situation needs to be addressed on an individual basis. From what I have gathered over the years, its become some kind of standard for the paid staff salaries of the church to be between 60 - 75% of money brought in. Given this statistic, anyone holding to such standards should cut salary first in the budget. While a shepherd is an important part of the church, he makes up just one part of the body. Everything I have read concerning NT giving doesn't support the current corporate mentality of today's church. Giving was done to support the poor in furthering of the gospel, not to maintain lofty salaries and facilities. It ticks me of to see pie charts where 80% of the chart is shaded in with salaries, benefits and facilities...and tiny slivers for discipleship and missions while those who are called within the local church to go on mission trips soliciting those within and outside of the church for the funds to do what God has called them to do, which the church should be commissioned to do. I believe if Christ visited many of our local churches today the results would mirror the money table overturning He did in the temples. There is a difference in caring for your shepherds (plural, as outlined in the Bible) and making them into mini CEO's. IMO, ALL shepherds should be equally taken care of. I fail to see where one man receives a nice salary for holding a manmade title of 'senior pastor', another receive less as an 'associate pastor' and 2 others nothing as volunteer 'elders'. Paul's instructions to Timothy made no distinction between paid and volunteer status.

This is just an opinion question, as you are good at giving your thoughts. While there is no distinction between paid and unpaid, do you not think on a Finance or Budget Committee within the local church, it does make a difference? In other words, if I am getting a salary from said local church, I feel it is a double standard or conflict of interest to be writing next year's budget. That goes for being on the personnel committee also. Most private businesses do not allow those that receive a salary to formulate such policy. In that regard, it does make a difference between paid and unpaid. As far as service to the Lord and how we treat others in our congregation, you are correct, each person is equal in need and love before our Savior, Jesus Christ, and we should treat each as such.

 

[Herald]

If your pastor is bi-vocational temper your demands upon his preaching. If a pastor has to work 50 hours a week and balance ministry/family, something will suffer. That is why I believe it is preferable for a church to support a full time preacher. The pastor's main duty is to labor over the Word. The work of the ministry is the responsibility of the membership, not a paid clergy.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If your pastor is bi-vocational temper your demands upon his preaching. If a pastor has to work 50 hours a week and balance ministry/family, something will suffer. That is why I believe it is preferable for a church to support a full time preacher. The pastor's main duty is to labor over the Word. The work of the ministry is the responsibility of the membership, not a paid clergy.

Now Im confused.....your saying its better to have a full time paid Preacher (so he is at the pulpit, RIGHT) & then the rest is done by members of the church. Am I even warm?

As a side note, this Sunday we sat under this pastor for 4 hours & the guy doesnt even get paid.....heck he works construction & pastors cause he had a calling. Wait till I tell him that he isnt following scripture because it commands him to get paid for sharing the gospel. LOL

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And I believe that is why Paul told the Elders to follow his example and work as he did.

Excellent post!!

Wait a minute fellas, wait a minute.....I just got told a whole other story about scripture commanding that Pastors be paid.....And if they arent paid we are going again scripture.

 

[webdog]

This is just an opinion question, as you are good at giving your thoughts. While there is no distinction between paid and unpaid, do you not think on a Finance or Budget Committee within the local church, it does make a difference? In other words, if I am getting a salary from said local church, I feel it is a double standard or conflict of interest to be writing next year's budget. That goes for being on the personnel committee also. Most private businesses do not allow those that receive a salary to formulate such policy. In that regard, it does make a difference between paid and unpaid. As far as service to the Lord and how we treat others in our congregation, you are correct, each person is equal in need and love before our Savior, Jesus Christ, and we should treat each as such.

Is this an elder or congregation led church?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And I believe that is why Paul told the Elders to follow his example and work as he did.

Excellent post!!

Where is that in scripture Fred?

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Wait a minute fellas, wait a minute.....I just got told a whole other story about scripture commanding that Pastors be paid.....And if they arent paid we are going again scripture.

Scripture does not advocate paid pastors. It clearly teaches the Elders (which are the equivalent of Pastors) should work as Paul worked so they can provide for the needs of others.
I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
Acts 20:33-35

 

[webdog]

Scripture does not advocate paid pastors. It clearly teaches the Elders (which are the equivalent of Pastors) should work as Paul worked so they can provide for the needs of others.
I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
Acts 20:33-35

Paul cannot be the standard as he was not a pastor.