Church Pastors' Pay Rises to More than $80,000

We take good care of our pastoral staff, as it should be, but many churches have this prayer in operation--"God, you keep the pastor humble and we will keep him poor." A compensation guide for a congregation should keep the pastor ahd his family somewhere in the middle of incomes in the congregation.

One friend was talking to a pulpit committee a couple of years ago. They told him that the job was bi-vocational (which really means "we pay you part time and expect you to work as if you are full time). They said, "our church is just not financially well off enough to pay a pastor a full time salary." My friend walked to the window, raised the blinds, pointed to the dozen or so brand new SUVs that the pulpit committee had parked in the parking lot as they arrived for the meeting, and said, "You can't pay your pastor a living wage? So to whom do these vehicles belong?"

That pretty much ended his candidacy, which he had already decided to reject anyway.

 

I specifically remember hearing that line in a church revival in 1983, when our church was without a pastor and at that time did not have an interim. The revival preacher, a pastor at another, larger, church, said "I paid $2600 in social security taxes last year, and I don't expect to ever see any of that money." Disregarding whether he paid them or his church paid all of them, about 12-13 years later he retired and moved to my then, and present, town, joined my new church and began a mission church, and he died approx. 4-6 years ago. He looked young for social security when he joined my church, so I don't know if he did "see" that money, but it was definitely there. But this is just an example of how casually a facsimile of "SS won't be around when I retire" is tossed about and how true it proves to be.

 

I am appalled at what I have seen as pastoral compensation.

Fight as I might my church does our pastor this way... anytime a raise or vacation is mentioned its comments like "He makes more than most in the area", "he gets a travel reimbursement", and "We pay his health care and part of his retirement." The man (and his wife, although she isn't figured into the compensation) are on call 24/365, at any moment he may be expected to drive the 42 miles to the hospital, give council on marriage,depression, grief, etc... He is expected to deliver 3 sermons a week,teach the young adult Sunday School, lead the Youth Outreach, attend all Church related functions, find time to be a Husband and Father and do all this with a smile.......... His compensation? A house, 330 bucks a week(before taxes), health care and partial retirement... and oh yeah lets not forget the whooping $170 a month budgeted for travel IF he turns in receipts. The entire package comes out somewhere around 25k a year, but if you use the studys math I'm sure he makes 569 billion.

And for the record most secular jobs pay travel expenses, I have never worked for one that did't. They buy the Hotels,meals, rent a vehicle and pay the gas when they expect me to travel out of town. In town they pay me the IRS allowed per mile figure plus meals if its 8,12,4-7p. Of course all this goes out the window when I'm driving the Semi, then its a flat mileage rate.

 

All I'm doing is running the numbers--the number of those paying in versus the number of those receiving SS. Not to mention Congress' raiding of the SS fund. All of that data is readily available, and it is in some manner agreed upon by untold numbers of folks from all over the political spectrum. What's wrong with my saying "I don't think it will be around in thirty years?" How is that an issue? I don't think it will be around then. But I am, by law, paying into it...thus, I have a right to receive it when my time comes. But I am also preparing as if it won't be there. In my opinion, that is a wise course of action.

What is wrong with any of my actions?

 

He was essentially correct, just off by a few years. According to the official document mailed to me on my last birthday by the Social Security Administration, and numerous charts and diagrams provided by the Concord Coalition, the following is true:

Sometime between 2015 and 2017, the amount of payroll taxes paid into SS will no longer be adequate to pay all benefits, and the difference will have to come from the general fund, meaning that money will have to be diverted from defense, education, etc., to pay current retiree benefits. The curve gets really ugly very quickly, and by 2028, virtually the entire federal budget will be required to pay current retiree benefits. These numbers have varied very little in the past 20 years. This is not fear, it is fact--cold hard numbers. Your evangelist friend just jumped the gun.

Check it out for yourself at:

http://www.concordcoalition.org/files/uploaded_for_nodes/080626-concord-chart-talk.ppt

How can it be fixed? The current administration will have to (1) raise payroll taxes by a substantial amount AND (2) Cut benefits AND (3) raise the retirement age to at least 75, AND (4) cut spending for each and every other government program AND (5) raise personal income taxes, AND (6) "means test," which means that people like me with other pensions will get NO SS, no matter how much we have paid in.

Do you think The GREAT ONE, HIS HOLINESS OBAMA The FIRST can get that through congress?

No, as usual, Washington will muddle around, and about a year before the SS Stuff hits the fan, they will panic and do all of the above in greater numbers than now.