conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

Tripp, thanks for your expansion of my thoughts on clergy support vs. pay. You've opened up new areas for further discussion. I think the area of clergy support (compensation, pay, support, whatever) would be a fascinating study. And, I do think the pendulum swings back and forth in this area, as in most others. Thanks for adding more depth to this discussion. -Chuck

I think the larger issue embedded in this discussion is that of ownership and control as well as the choice between vocation and avocation. As we have discussed the idea of what a pastor's role is in a community, I suspect that much of it is tied to perceptions of ownership. The congregation compensates the pastor with an expectation that the pastor will take ownership of the church, and the congregation implicitly assumes it owns the pastor and can assert some form of control. This is complicated by the varying perceptions of moral authority imputed to the pastor by each congregant based on their own upbringing. If one was raised in an environment where the pastor represented God more directly, there is less impetus to see the pastor as an employee. Conversely, in a tradition where the role of the pastor is less as an intermediary and more as a guide, a congregant might be more inclined to try to manage the pastor's activity.

The other layer that makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusion is the perception of a minister as devoted to a vocation or involved in an avocation. Both can be deeply felt by the minister themself, but most people measure committment in terms of time spent and engagement. I can't help but wonder how a pastor with a part-time job outside of the pastorate could properly function within the expectations of a congregation in a city/suburban environment. Even with the best intentions, the effort it would take to reshape perceptions within the congregation will be difficult to manage. I can see this working in a small town, where everyone is scraping to make ends meet, but that sense of compromise is only starting to be felt in metropolitan areas.

Rich,

Good points. In seminary there was a lively debate between the Sudanese priest and the female seminarians about obedience. The Sudanese priest struggled to understand why we had to pay for seminary. His diocese paid his way (read: found money from various sources) "How else is one to learn obedience to the church unless it cares for you?" The seminarians said that obedience (and slavery) were sticky topics here...specifically for minorities and women. Very interesting perspectives. So, yes to your point.

The logistical realities for the American church are interesting and may force us to reconsider some of our position. Urban or Suburban, there are many successful ministries out there where the pastor is part-time and the "other job" is an extension of the ministry of the pastor into the community. Good News Church is part of Good News Community Kitchen, for example.

I am not suggesting that everyone needs to switch over immediately. I am simply suggesting that many churches may have to become very creative as they think about how to support a pastor.

Note: Many African-American pastors are bi-vocational and serve congregations that could support them in full-time ministry. There are some good conversation partners tucked away in there somewhere.

This is interesting stuff. We spent most of our Sunday School hour last week discussing this kind of stuff. We are working through 1 Corinthians and we spent most of the time on chapt. 9:13-23. http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=110439418

In that section Paul is talking about the fact that priests and those working in the temple should get paid. Paul, though, in Corinth forgoes payment because of the issue of ownership that Rich mentions.

We had an interesting conversation because the person leading the class comes from a missionary background in which they were supported by they church and the community in which they served. The problem they discovered is that by being supported by the church the church expected them to start churches. They (the missionaries)thought it would be best if the community starts the church; thus avoiding the problem that Paul talks about. Another person talked about how their father (like you grandfather) got paid "in kind." And that was fine.

Like you state, though, and in 3 years I will fit this bill (plus my undergrad loans) many trained pastors leave seminary in debt. In kind payment is not a feasible situation.

This is a sticky wicket and will only get stickier as I begin my work in 4 years.

The idea of clergy compensation is interesting to me, having grown up in an extreme version of this. Salvation Army officers (pastors) are compensated so well that they are given use of the very sheets, towels, utensils, dishes and furnishings in the homes they are also offered. They drive cars that are provided for them and are also given a salary (albeit modest) with which to buy art, technology, clothing, food, etc. The family of the clergy are well-supported.

The down side to this kind of support is the idea of "ownership" as Rich mentioned. Because you are fully supported, you are also subject to the "whims" of the institution. An individual's call to ministry is discerned by those in the decision-making posts, and not as a personal understanding of your own ministry. Because you are given everything, you also sacrifice your "ownership" of your calling.

Additionally, it makes it difficult, if not impossible for people to leave when they have discerned a different calling. The Salvation Army, for example, offers a wonderful retirement package, if you stay with them until you retire. If you leave early, you get nothing. There is a small severance pay in order to help you pay your first month's rent somewhere, but the gift of support becomes a curse when your calling calls you away from this particular ministry. My parents waited until my brother and I were in college to separate from the Army, but it was extremely difficult, nonetheless.

It is a difficult balance to strike. In a fiscal world, clergy must be able to navigate the world independently of their congregations so they may be able to answer the call to ministry, even as the call may lead in different directions. Congregations, on the other hand, must understand that part of the relationship between a pastor and the people she serves is one of ministry...to one another. Can we give this freely to the understanding that ministry is a call, without staking claims on an individual, their service and their vocation?

Good post, Tripp, and great comments, too.

In our denomination (ELCA), we're wrangling with this very question. As recently as the 1980s, most clergy left seminary with very little debt, if any at all, leaving them free to be called to just about any parish in the country, rural or urban, large or small. But as tithing dropped and educational debt rose, a crisis eventually developed where seminarians with high debt were being asked to serve congregations that couldn't even approach a living wage.

We've tried different ways to handle the process. Every ELCA Synod has established 'guidelines' for clergy based on years of experience, but the usage of those guidelines varies from synod to synod. Some synods force congregations to agree to 'guidelines pay' before releasing names of pastors available for call, which can become quite adversarial, as you can well imagine. Others find a solution much like Gordon's congregation: part time ministry becomes a means of ensuring the continuation of the ministry for the time being.

For me, the unfortunate part of all of this is the burden and anxiety it places on those who are newly graduating from seminary. The call process in our church can take quite some time depending on circumstances, and student loans coming due places undue pressure on people to accept calls based on money alone, which is never a good reason to take any job, especially a ministry position.

We're working on ways to reduce seminary costs, but it's a solution that will be years, if not decades, in the making. At the least I'm glad to know we Lutherans aren't the only ones working on the issue.