Pastors

[David Pettigrew]

We've touched on pastoral tenure and compensation in the other threads on this forum, but I felt it needed its own thread.

What needs to change in relation to...
...the process of calling a pastor?
...the process of hiring a pastor?
...the process of paying a pastor?
...the process of reviewing a pastor?

Some random thoughts to get the ball rolling:

It would seem the congregational model produces (or at least lends itself) to longer tenures. Should we just let churches find their own durn pastor instead of going through a DS?

Or, should we adopt an episcopal model, and "send" pastors rather than "call" pastors?

I have made it plain that I would prefer to be employed by the Church of the Nazarene, rather than my local church. Is such a system practical?

[Glenda Harvey]

My concerns for Pastors are in the areas of Health Insurance and Retirement benefits. Some type of a fund needs to be set up to help the smaller Churches provide these things for their Pastors and their Pastors families as well some type of training provided for those going into the ministry for solid retirement planning.

[Ryan Scott]

Health Insurance is an important thing, especially with the system in place in our country. I'm not so much worried about retirement benefits. I'm planning on being responsible for my own retirement; if a congregation I'm a part of wants to contribute to that, I'll be grateful, but that's far lower on my list. The bigger issue is making sure pastors are paid enough to be able to afford to save for their own retirement.

I'm going into ministry with the goal of not counting on anything from the local congregation. My wife and I are working very hard to make sure compensation doesn't limit us from any assignment, but that doesn't mean the issue shouldn't be addressed.

I see the benefits of having ministers work for the denomination, but I'm not sure I like the oversight that would be required for that. It inevitably ends up with an outside force exerting additional influence on an agreement between a congregation and a pastor, which seems difficult enough as it is.

[David Pettigrew]

Health Insurance is an important thing, especially with the system in place in our country. I'm not so much worried about retirement benefits. I'm planning on being responsible for my own retirement; if a congregation I'm a part of wants to contribute to that, I'll be grateful, but that's far lower on my list. The bigger issue is making sure pastors are paid enough to be able to afford to save for their own retirement.

I'm going into ministry with the goal of not counting on anything from the local congregation. My wife and I are working very hard to make sure compensation doesn't limit us from any assignment, but that doesn't mean the issue shouldn't be addressed. You are wise.

I see the benefits of having ministers work for the denomination, but I'm not sure I like the oversight that would be required for that. It inevitably ends up with an outside force exerting additional influence on an agreement between a congregation and a pastor, which seems difficult enough as it is.

I realize this would be a MAJOR paradigm shift, but here are some benefits to being employed by the denomination, not in order of importance:

1) What a church can afford to pay me would have absolutely no bearing on my decision to "be called" to it.
2) I wouldn't be tempted to "be called" to a church that can pay me more.
3) I would never have to ask for a raise.
4) Payroll taxes automatically filed, and filed properly (many local treasurers in small churches do this incorrectly.)
5) Unemployment benefits
6) The time, energy, and resources currently taken up by my local church being an employer can be used in ministry related areas instead.
7) My pocketbook would have no bearing on my leadership decisions in my local church.
8) Salary and benefits could never be used as a weapon in a local church.
9) Direct deposit.
10) Salary would be commiserate with education, experience, job performance, and geography, rather than "this is what we can afford to pay" (the only criteria the majority of North American churches use.)
11) Greater accountability to my denomination.
12) Much easier to prove income. You would be surprised how difficult this is for pastors, and how it limits you in obtaining credit.

Drawbacks (that I can think of):
1) Increased budgets
2) Increased bureaucracy
3) Loss of accountability to local church
4) My actual salary may decrease if this were adopted.

My response to these drawbacks:
1) If we cut what we're currently paying in budgets to 10%, and churches were not paying salaries, this would come out as a wash to most churches.
2) The Episcopal diocese in Texas contracts with a payroll company to handle this (paychex). If we contracted this out, it wouldn't mean adding much overhead. I can see a human resources office being added to headquarters, but I see it as being an actual resource, rather than an interference.
3) This deserves its own post.
4) This is the reason this whole idea will probably never happen. Whatever system the denomination comes up with, it can't pay all pastors at the same level that those at the top are currently getting paid. So, someone's salary would actually get cut. Nobody's going to vote to cut their own salary.

[David Pettigrew]

I can't believe I forgot about the following benefits to the above:

13) Greater incentive to pastors to further their education (pay scale tied to degree)
14) Greater incentive to "hang in there" when things get tough (pay scale tied to tenure)
15) Greater incentive to produce fruit (pay scale tied to job performance)

[Marsha Lynn]

I realize this would be a MAJOR paradigm shift...

Drawbacks (that I can think of):
1) Increased budgets

Man, you're not a-kidding about the paradigm shift. "Increased budgets" is quite an understatement.

In the 2006-07 church year, just short of 40% of the disbursements made by my small church went to pastoral compensation (including benefits but not business expenses). Another 20% went to budgets. Assuming that we would still be responsible for providing adequate compensation for our pastor, only via a middleman organization, and with continuing support for the denomination at large and world missions, we would need to start sending 60% of what comes into the local church to Kansas City. Even cutting existing budgets to 10% would still mean sending 50% to headquarters.

I can't imagine a more demoralizing scenario. Half of every dollar put in the offering plate would disappear into some pit totally beyond our control. Giving more money would pay our pastor no better; giving less would pay him no less.

I'm pretty sure that I can tell you exactly what would happen locally: People would find ways to give that circumvented the offering plate. I already see that happening to some extent because of a negative view of the budget system. Why put money in the plate when you can simply go out and buy stuff for the church and not have to pay "taxes" on it? The church has to buy the stuff anyway. Doing it oneself gives the added satisfaction of getting to select brand, quality, color, and timing -- all the benefits of giving without the discomfort of actually entrusting the gift to the whims of church leadership at any level. And opportunity to scratch the consumerism itch at the same time!

There's hardly any expense of the local church that couldn't be handled in that fashion, even the mortgage and utilities, and I envision many giving in to the pressure to do so -- in the name of good stewardship, of course. I protested the "tax" mindset concerning budgets in a recent thread, but I would have to give in to that view at this level. It would certainly be beyond my 'persuasive speech' skills to persuade anyone that a 50% to 60% tariff on local income by the denomination is a particularly generous 'tithe' to be given cheerfully in expectation of blessing in return. There would be no disguising such a burdensome tax. It would generate the same type and intensity of temptation to find loopholes that burdensome taxes always generate.

Are there denominations that use this model? If so, how do they persuade local churches to contribute their share of the pastoral compensation money?

I can certainly sympathize with the desire of pastors to get away from being employed by the local church. It's an awkward arrangement, at best. I just can't get my mind around the idea of sending our pastoral compensation money off for someone else to administer.

Marsha

[David Pettigrew]

Perhaps my scenario is a bit idealistic. It was based on churches spending 30% of their operating budget on pastoral salary and benefits. If we take our current budget system down to 10%, budgets would increase to a total of 40% of income. But salaries would be taken down to 0%.

But I'm not too good with math. I don't have my glasses on.

[David Pettigrew]

I ran the numbers for our local church last year:

Total raised for all purposes:
183,954

Total paid in budgets:
17002

Total paid in pastor salary and benefits:
Pastor's actual cash housing - 9616
Pastor's cash salary - 24039
Employee benefits - 8286
Total - 41941

Budgets+pastoral compensation: 58943

Under my proposal, (40% of money raised), we would have sent in 73581.60

Ok, never mind.

But, hey, I could have just not posted this when I ran the numbers. I get points for honesty.

[David Pettigrew]

Now that I look at it, my salary was only about 23% of total raised.

Let me know when your church opens up, Marsha!

Using that percentage, we would have paid 60,705 in budgets (23%+10%)

[Marsha Lynn]

Now that I look at it, my salary was only about 23% of total raised.

Let me know when your church opens up, Marsha!

Using that percentage, we would have paid 60,705 in budgets (23%+10%)

I was counting both salary and benefits. That's the number I had handy from last year's annual report. I presume the new employer would pick up all benefits and they would have to inevitably be funded by the local churches since there's little or no independent revenue at the denominational level.

BTW, you would lose ground coming here -- your church's income is substantially higher. However, not having an open pulpit is one of the goals of our local board/finance committee. Having a pastor who isn't anxious to jump to greener pastures helps, because there are plenty out there. We're going on 15 years with our current pastor, twice the longest previous tenure in the 65+ years of church history. And that's not because the church has matured to the point where it's an easy pastorate. He and his wife have been through the fire in the past few years. We almost lost them a year ago. I'm glad they decided to walk a little further with us. It has been a good year by several measures.

Marsha

[David Pettigrew]

BTW, you would lose ground coming here -- your church's income is substantially higher.

Marsha

To me, this is another check on the side of doing it my way. The system is inherently unfair to smaller churches, b/c they end having to pay a much higher percentage of their income towards pastoral salary just to stay competitive.

[Marsha Lynn]

To me, this is another check on the side of doing it my way. The system is inherently unfair to smaller churches, b/c they end having to pay a much higher percentage of their income towards pastoral salary just to stay competitive.

So you would make it a flat percentage and have larger, more wealthy, churches pay out more in pastoral support money than the compensation their pastor received in order to subsidize the salaries for smaller churches? Would the small churches use the money saved to minister as effectively as the large church could have done with the same money?

When things were looking bleak financially a few years ago, the finance committee hesitated to discuss a raise for our pastor. My take on it was that if we didn't have the finances to adequately compensate a full-time pastor, we needed to consider moving to bivocational expectations for pastoral service. I'm still of that same mindset. When a well-established congregation reaches the point where it is unable to support its pastor, pay budgets, and keep the lights on with diligent financial oversight then it is no longer a viable self-supporting congregation.

Personally, I'm not sure having our pastor's salary subsidized by the denomination is the answer to that problem, but I don't suppose I would fuss too much if some large church decided to funnel some of its resources our direction. Actually, I guess they do already. I'm planning to attend the Discipleship Summit at Indy Westside at the end of this month. (Anyone else going to be there????) Sessions like this coming out of Nazarene Headquarters with WEF support (collected by proportional assessment of churches of all sizes) are a wonderful blessing to small churches that can't afford to sponsor or participate in such events on their own.

Marsha

[Crystal Lutton]

this is the issue at the bane of my existence at the moment. I received my Master's in Theology from Fuller about 8 years ago, have been a member of our current congregation and in leadership for 7 years, have been on staff for 4 years, and district licensed going into my third year . . . yet I cannot yet be ordained. While going through the process the process was extended an extra year for me and now I'm being told that someone is interpreting it at our district level as 5 years with a district license . . . I'll be ready to retire by the time I can get ordained. ;) Meanwhile I have both my master's and have completed all of my required CON classes and have been running a separate ministry for 8 years. It's become a very frustrating process. As far as our Senior Pastor and our congregation are concerned it's just a matter of beaurocracy (I always misspell that word, maybe a subtle expression of my dislike of it ;)) and paperwork and it's not holding me back as far as our local body--I just don't understand why it has to be so difficult a process.

I definitely think it makes sense for someone rising up from within the CON who is starting the entire process from the beginning. For someone coming in it's so many hoops to jump through that I can't imagine many actually stick with it.

Okay, I'm done whining :)

[Gary Swartzlander]

Who pays the salaries of associate pastors, and who has the authority to grant permission for a church to hire associates? How can anyone but a local church board determine what is appropriate staffing for their church?

[David Pettigrew]

Who pays the salaries of associate pastors, and who has the authority to grant permission for a church to hire associates? How can anyone but a local church board determine what is appropriate staffing for their church?

You already have someone else besides the local board making that decision. Churches cannot hire staff without the approval of the district superintendent.

What if the decision to hire those called to full time or part time vocational staff ministry (worship, youth, children, executive, associate, whatever) was based on need rather than income?

[David Pettigrew]

I hate to keep posting more than anyone else in my own thread, but let me throw another idea out there (and please keep in mind that's all this thread is - ideas. I'm not nearly as thick as I look, and I know that there are parts of my brainstorming that are impractical.)

What if pastors continue to be paid by the local church, but the denomination sets the salary, once again based on education, experience, track record, and location? I'm not talking about a minimum salary (you must pay at least this amount.) That amounts to a minimum wage for pastors - "We'd pay you less if we could, but they told us we had to pay this." I'm talking about a set across the board salary for all pastors at a certain professional level.

This is kinda sorta what is done in the Methodist church. If a church is too small to meet the salary requirement for a pastor, they are placed in a charge with another church, and share the pastor.

[David Pettigrew]

So you would make it a flat percentage and have larger, more wealthy, churches pay out more in pastoral support money than the compensation their pastor received in order to subsidize the salaries for smaller churches? Yep. I call it the "Robin Hood Pastoral Compensation Plan"Would the small churches use the money saved to minister as effectively as the large church could have done with the same money? That's the idea.


Marsha

I don't know about "as effectively." But I do think a lot of our really small churches would make wonderful compassionate ministry centers.

[Ryan Scott]

I still don't know how you could finance a plan like this without closing a whole lot of small congregations. Wouldn't a central staffing system require putting a paid pastor in every open position? There are far too many small congregations to make this feasible, not too many all the dysfunctional congregations that would chew up and spit out the pastors sent there.

By the way, HQ already has an HR department and a contracted payroll system for the HQ employees. I'm sure they'd have to add some staff, but that aspect wouldn't be difficult to implement.

I don't know the legal ramifications, but it seems like a good compromise would be setting up a situation in which local congregations paid their pastor through the denomination. Then you could have the advantages of centralized employment without being bankrupted by the cost of supplying pastors to all the smaller congregations. It sounds like you really want better oversight of the compensation process. This might accomplish that objective. When a congregation and a pastor agree on a compensation package, the HR work is handled through HQ and the congregation just send the compensation money through HQ with their other budget payments. It's not ideal, but seems far more workable (if it's legal).

[Gary Swartzlander]

What if the decision to hire those called to full time or part time vocational staff ministry (worship, youth, children, executive, associate, whatever) was based on need rather than income?

That's how it should be, you won't get an argument from me on this one.

[Gina Stevenson]

10) Salary would be commiserate with education, experience, job performance, and geography, rather than "this is what we can afford to pay" (the only criteria the majority of North American churches use.)

David, after reading all the thread, I was going to say that it didn't seem I'd read that location would be taken into consideration, so was going to comment thereon. But, before I could do that, I realized that I'd just overlooked it, as it's right here ... in the paragraph that tickled me a wee bit ... you did indeed mention, "geography."

Anyway, what got me tickled was that, while you meant commensurate, the word you did use is woefully correct, too, in a lot of those low-paying situations ... where pastors could definitely commiserate with each other about their remuneration. :cool:

[Bob Carabbio]

In the case of the Assemblies of God, ASSUMING THAT the church is "sovereign" - i.e. is of sufficient size, and has sufficient substance to be autonomous in operation -

WHEN a church is "open" and needs a pastor, it's normally announced over the denominational network (which includes the internet these days), and candidates who have interest in the church will then send resumes/videos/tapes to the board of the open church which (in a sovereign church) is legally empowered to execute business in the church's name, and to (let's use the non-religious terms) "Screen", "interview", and "hire" a senior pastor. The Board CAN involve additional Congregational members at their option to assist in the process, AND involve the District Presbyter if they want to, for opinions on the suitability of this, or that candidate.

The "District Presbyter" for the section that the church is in CAN BE CALLED and involved at ANY level that the church board desires INCLUDING (in extreme cases) the declaration of the church as a "District affiliate" - which removes the church board from power, and transfers ALL authority, and ownership to the denominational sectional committee - which then appoints a pastor - who may or may not operate with a Church board which would then be an "honorary/advisory" position until such time as autonomy returns to the church itself.

It was my great pleasure to be involved in such a procedure last year, and the way that the Lord OVERTLY brought everything together was probably one of the most spectacular spiritual experiences I've personally had in the last 40 years. We were STRONGLY CONSIDERING closing the church and just letting the Section "take over" the property (since our building loan was with them).

The congregation was shrinking, we were losing a couple of grand from savings every month, the pastor had quit, and we were an all white church in a town/neighborhood that was RAPIDLY going black, and "White flight" was in full swing. There seemed to be no way. But what was left of the congregation commissioned us to "find a pastor" - that we couldn't even pay if we found him.

But the Lord led us (out of 27 candidates) to 5, and then to 2 - and then 1, and it was SO CLEAR that he was "THE MAN", that we offered him a good living salary (so he'd be "full time") and since then everything is coming slowly together - the church is supporting itself with a bit left over for improvements, growing, and we're now at just over 10% black membership and increasing in that way monthly.

And the Lord simply is "DOING IT". We didn't know how to make our place "appetizing" to folks of other ethnicity - we were just willing to welcome and love 'em. And suddenly, there they are!!

Could be our pastor will stay for the next 15 years. Could be there'll be another guy in three. But the bottom line is that IF the Church board approaches the thing prayerfully, and in unity of purpose, it's in God's hands, and He WILL make a way where there SEEMS TO BE no way.

[Mike Schutz]

15) Greater incentive to produce fruit (pay scale tied to job performance)

How is "job performance" measured?

*increase in Sunday AM attendance
*increase in membership
*paying church budgets

Isn't this what many of us are already frustrated about - that the real work of pastoring cannot be measured by such numbers?

So, this past Sunday evening, as I was leading a membership information meeting, I must have made a mistake in telling the lifelong Catholic to "go easy and slowly;" that she is certainly welcome to worship with us and participate in the other benefits of our fellowship, but becoming a Nazarene is something that should be done only after great prayer. Instead, I should have "closed the sale." Maybe then I could get a raise and pay down my credit cards.

I tend to be temperamentally predisposed to dislike any system that removes decision making away from those who are most affected by the decision.

And being in a part of the country that, in my opinion, the good folks at headquarters just don't seem to understand (East Coast, urban, diverse), I'm hesitant to have them make decisions that directly affect what we can do here. For example, we have come up with a creative way to have part-time staff. (And it can't hurt that the district business manager and his family are members of our fellowship.) Our DS is able to visit, see what we are doing, and support it. An HR person in Lenoxa, KS would look at our numbers, say, "they are too small to support that large of a staff," and deny our request.

[Cindi Hammons]

This is kinda sorta what is done in the Methodist church. If a church is too small to meet the salary requirement for a pastor, they are placed in a charge with another church, and share the pastor.

David, they also usually get a second church to pastor...at least in rural Ohio! I worked with one pastor in a Hospice. He was a Methodist minister, had two small churches, AND worked part time at Hospice to make ends meet.

[Eric Frey]

I hate to keep posting more than anyone else in my own thread, but let me throw another idea out there (and please keep in mind that's all this thread is - ideas. I'm not nearly as thick as I look, and I know that there are parts of my brainstorming that are impractical.)

What if pastors continue to be paid by the local church, but the denomination sets the salary, once again based on education, experience, track record, and location? I'm not talking about a minimum salary (you must pay at least this amount.) That amounts to a minimum wage for pastors - "We'd pay you less if we could, but they told us we had to pay this." I'm talking about a set across the board salary for all pastors at a certain professional level.

This is kinda sorta what is done in the Methodist church. If a church is too small to meet the salary requirement for a pastor, they are placed in a charge with another church, and share the pastor.

This seems the best approach to me. The UMC's also have an additional option if they cannot afford to meet the established salary. Get a part time or local pastor. This gives the local church the options and the autonomy to make their own decisions, but still meets my beliefs regarding these issues:

1) Every church deserves a full time pastor. Not necessarily at one congregation, but someone who can devote their whole being into shepherding the flock without having to say, "sorry, I can't be at the hospital this morning, I am out of personal days at my job," or of being so drained from another job that they have far less than their best to give to the church.

2) Every pastor deserves a robust theological eductation.

3) Every pastor deserves the basic benefits of any other full time job.


BTW is it so aweful to suggest that before a larger church can hire a 13th fulltime pastor we ought to make sure that all our churches have one fulltime pastor?

[Anonymous Post via Moderator]

I like the Methodist form of pastoral placement where the Bishop chooses the replacement pastor. I know there are downsides to this, but there are many, many upsides as well. The Nazarene system is very hard and very dependent upon discerning a mystical feeling from God when choosing the pastor. I believe this is wonderful when all the board is in tune with this prayerful need, but, how many times is the board really there? When one board interviewed several people for pastor, they narrowed it down to Pastor X and Pastor Y and Pastor Z from their resumes. The board needed to decide between the two and interviewed them all during the course of one week. The board gravitated towards one, then voted on him unanimously. "What a God thing!" was being said throughout the board and congregation!!! It turns out that later, the church was in deep turmoil and wanted this pastor gone now. Was it a "God thing," or was it a spiritually out-of-tune board?

Why tell this? Well, really and truly, how much can a board really know about a person in one or two or even three interviews? How much can they tell by watching a video of the pastor preaching "his best sermon," or asking him to come preach a "try out" sermon for the congregation? And, what if the board really isn't spiritually in tune to feel God's choice for the position? I'm afraid this happens often and the hiring of a pastor can turn into the same thing as hiring a new secretary. If that choice is removed from the local church, the District hierarchy is prayerfully making those decision (while intimately learning what the church wants AND needs). Truthfully, many churches have board members who have never hired another person in their life, never worked in managing personnel, or may not have the spiritual walk that it takes to search for God's anointed person.

[David Pettigrew]

How is "job performance" measured?

*increase in Sunday AM attendance
*increase in membership
*paying church budgets



Ok, I'm going to try to fit this into one post, though it probably belongs in several, so please hang with me, folks.

I am not talking about rewarding increased attendance with merit pay.

By "job performance", I mean that there are certain things good pastors should do every week/month/year, and, sadly, in many cases, no one is holding them accountable to doing it. We have a form we fill out once a year called "Annual Report". It has slots for numbers that lots of times are just made up, such as "How many calls did you make this year?" How the heck should I know? You mean I was supposed to write that down?

I think if a pastor has 1) obtained 8 CEU credits in a year (something now mandated, but not enforced), 2) preached a certain number of sermons (instead of filling the calendar with singing groups, children's programs, special speakers, etc once a month), 3) been a good shepherd (visiting the sick, met with members for fellowship, done weddings, funerals, and baptisms), 4) Been a good administrator (had the books audited, conducted a yearly review), and 5) Pursued church health (administered the church health survey, talked monthly with a mentor, met weekly with an accountability group), then he or she has performed their job according to the description, and deserve a cost of living increase. That's what I mean by tying pay to "job performance". I'm NOT talking about a hundred dollar bonus for every extra set of buns in the pew.

Mike, the trouble is, every system we come up with is meant to address the weaknesses of the previous system. But every system we come up with has unintended consequences. I can already see several unintended consequences of the system I proposed since starting this thread - which is the BEAUTY of this board and why it is such a BLESSING to the Church of the Nazarene!

Here is the reason I mentioned pay tied to job performance. I always have to give real world examples. I typed an entire story of how a really bad pastor can ruin a church, and then we somehow reward them for it by giving them another church, but I kept reading it and no matter how many details I left out, somebody somewhere would know who I was talking about. But the truth is, every single person reading this can insert their own story of this happening.

Under the current system, there is very little reward for faithfulness (other than jewels in your crown) and very little consequence for being incompetent, a sociopath, or just plain dumb as a sack of rocks. The problem is, if we attempt to impose a system to correct this, it will have it's own negative impact (like the church of the nazarene going broke, or someone somewhere who needs a youth pastor not getting one)

We keep saying pastors aren't paid enough. But in trying to propose a system that would require churches to pay enough, it seems it's not really what we want to do. It sounds like a good idea in theory (paying pastors what the are worth), but when we talk about what it would take to actually do it, we get really squeamish.

I suppose we could do away with vocational ministry altogether. That would pretty much accomplish everything on my list of benefits.

I don't mean to sound so harsh in this post, but I feel as if the air has been let out of my beautiful red balloon.

As the pastor always says (and usually lies when saying it), this and I'm through. I have no problem with churches who can't pay for a full time pastor not having one. I also believe some people are called to bi vocational ministry, and can be successful at it.

Like I said, I lied. One more thing. Knowing how pastors are with math, could you imagine if we really did tie pay to new members and baptisms, what everyone's annual report would look like that year? I could just hear the General Superintendent's report - "It's a loaves and fishes miracle! The USA/Canada region has somehow baptized 2 billion souls this year! Praise God!"

[Ryan Scott]

Here is the reason I mentioned pay tied to job performance. I always have to give real world examples. I typed an entire story of how a really bad pastor can ruin a church, and then we somehow reward them for it by giving them another church, but I kept reading it and no matter how many details I left out, somebody somewhere would know who I was talking about. But the truth is, every single person reading this can insert their own story of this happening.


You probably have to solve that problem among District Superintendents first. That's about the only job in the denomination you can't get fired from. No matter how poorly your skills match the job, they just move you to another district.

[Ryan Scott]

This is kinda sorta what is done in the Methodist church. If a church is too small to meet the salary requirement for a pastor, they are placed in a charge with another church, and share the pastor.


I'd be interested in how they fund that system. My grandfather retired from being a Nazarene minister and took a three-point Methodist charge as his retirement project. He loved it because all he had to do was preach (the local boards did everything else - no calls in the middle of the night when the furnace breaks).

The thing is, he was paid better for that assignment in a bunch of small congregations than he ever was in the Church of the Nazarene and he got more of a pension from his five years in the Methodist Church than he did in 35 years in the Church of the Nazarene. I'm guessing the Methodists have a better way of handling compensation. I don't think the Church of the Nazarene could just switch to that format without changing a lot of other things.

[Hans Deventer]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]I like the Methodist form of pastoral placement where the Bishop chooses the replacement pastor.

I think I agree with much of what you write. Problem is, Phineas Bresee did run into trouble with his bishop and he wasn't the only preacher of the holiness message who did so.

So agreeing that church boards often aren't so well equipped to choose their pastor, how do we avoid bishops making the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons? Would we have to create a Board for Pastoral Arrangements at the district level to do this? And to whom would they be accountable?

[David Pettigrew]

David, after reading all the thread, I was going to say that it didn't seem I'd read that location would be taken into consideration, so was going to comment thereon. But, before I could do that, I realized that I'd just overlooked it, as it's right here ... in the paragraph that tickled me a wee bit ... you did indeed mention, "geography."

Anyway, what got me tickled was that, while you meant commensurate, the word you did use is woefully correct, too, in a lot of those low-paying situations ... where pastors could definitely commiserate with each other about their remuneration. :cool:


Just call me Archie Bunker.

[Eric Vail]

2) Every pastor deserves a robust theological eductation.

3) Every pastor deserves the basic benefits of any other full time job.



I agree that pastors should prepare themselves for the ministry to which God has called them. I also agree that as a matter of justice our pastors should not be expected to sacrifice their well-being or their family's any more than any other person in the church whom God has called to a specific vocational ministry.

On the other side of the coin: pastors don't have a right to be handed their education any more than someone who is called to be a teacher, nurse, social worker, politician, etc. I am very uncomfortable by the sentiment I've picked up from some of my peers while I was at seminary that the church owed them an education--that a local congregation owed them a certain standard of living--all because they were making the personal sacrifice to serve the Lord.

I am not saying that by your comments you meant any of those things (hence my agreement with the positive side of them). I just wish we could do without the ugly flip-side of that coin: that we could exorcise out of some of our clergy their sense of entitlement, that they are the royalty of Christ's Body.

Speaking as a licensed minister on the way toward ordination,
Eric

[Kevin Rector]

I like the Methodist form of pastoral placement where the Bishop chooses the replacement pastor.

I wouldn't have a problem with this (I am an appointee at my church).

I would however have a problem with the itinerantcy that they have in the UMC. Pastors are moved from church to church every few years at the whim of their leadership (I'm not sure if it's the bishop or a committee that moves pastors around). I like the fact that as long as my church likes me and I like them and the DS is content with my performance I can stay here my entire career potentially. If that changed and I could face a "forced" move, I'd just leave the denomination - my family doesn't need that sort of instability.

[Kevin Rector]

I agree that pastors should prepare themselves for the ministry to which God has called them. I also agree that as a matter of justice our pastors should not be expected to sacrifice their well-being or their family's any more than any other person in the church whom God has called to a specific vocational ministry.

On the other side of the coin: pastors don't have a right to be handed their education any more than someone who is called to be a teacher, nurse, social worker, politician, etc. I am very uncomfortable by the sentiment I've picked up from some of my peers while I was at seminary that the church owed them an education--that a local congregation owed them a certain standard of living--all because they were making the personal sacrifice to serve the Lord.

I am not saying that by your comments you meant any of those things (hence my agreement with the positive side of them). I just wish we could do without the ugly flip-side of that coin: that we could exorcise out of some of our clergy their sense of entitlement, that they are the royalty of Christ's Body.

Speaking as a licensed minister on the way toward ordination,
Eric

Should pastors get a free ride? Not at this time. If only because I have no idea where the money would come from? But I have been a big proponent of establishing an endowment to be run by the general church that will subsidize ministerial training in exchange for years of service to the church. It seems like such a simple idea and yet our leadership can't seem to get it done (one person at HQ told me they've been discussing such an endowment for 20 years).

I don't think that pastors are "entitled" to free education. However, I do believe that it is in the church's best interest to ensure that it's pastors are very well educated and not overwhelmingly in debt.

Personally I think that a master's degree M.A. or M.Div should be a requirement for ordination. Or at least a bachelor's degree. Unfortunately economics keeps many potential pastors (especially those entering later in life) from pursing a university education and that is detrimental to the church.

[Marsha Lynn]

I wouldn't have a problem with this (I am an appointee at my church).

I would however have a problem with the itinerantcy that they have in the UMC. Pastors are moved from church to church every few years at the whim of their leadership (I'm not sure if it's the bishop or a committee that moves pastors around). I like the fact that as long as my church likes me and I like them and the DS is content with my performance I can stay here my entire career potentially. If that changed and I could face a "forced" move, I'd just leave the denomination - my family doesn't need that sort of instability.

My family and I lost some good friends last time the local UMC changed pastors. They had stayed longer than most (7 or 8 years?), simply because he wasn't ordained. I don't understand how all of it works, but apparently everyone familiar with the system knew that as soon as he was ordained, he would be moved. I think some foot-dragging (prompted by more than just the prospect of moving) delayed the ordination process, extending their ministry here and getting their two children most of the way through high school, but, sure enough, he was moved almost immediately upon ordination -- between their younger child's junior and senior year of high school. Perhaps, there were people in the congregation pleased by that happening. The ones I know the best were not.

I don't know that the UMC system as a whole isn't better than what we have, but I'm quite pleased that our pastors are not shuffled every few years by denominational leaders who may know little or nothing about the dynamics of the local church community.

On the other hand, there would be no need to tack on frequent, denominational-prompted moves to David's plan for the denomination to become the employer of pastors.

Marsha

[Ryan Scott]

Again, I have to wonder if a continuation of the current hiring arrangements, but the creation of centrally run HR infrastructure wouldn't be an appropriate avenue for the Church of the Nazarene.

I was hoping for some feedback when I mentioned it the first time.

[Eric Frey]

1) I don't think a pastor should get a "free education." I guess I worded it poorly. I believe every church deserves an educated pastor. How that is accomplished is beyond me. I think Kevin's idea has merrit. In education, you can get debt forgiveness if you meet certain criteria (poor district + years of service)

2) Does anyone know the average tenure of a pastor in the UMC vs one in the CotN? We have two UMCs in our town. One pastor has been here around 5 yrs and the other 9. That makes these two small parishes average about 7.5 years and climbing. I also know from talking to them that in their diocese there is a recognition that frequent change for change sake is not helpful. And there is a concerted part at the diocesan level to not move a pastor for at least 5 years. I don't know if that is across the board. I would be interested to find out the comparative statistics.

[David Pettigrew]

Again, I have to wonder if a continuation of the current hiring arrangements, but the creation of centrally run HR infrastructure wouldn't be an appropriate avenue for the Church of the Nazarene.

I was hoping for some feedback when I mentioned it the first time.

What if, instead of going through a DS, your structure was used to match pastors and churches, based on something or other (maybe an "eharmony" approach?) They wouldn't "assign" pastors, but would make recommendations.

And that structure also provided payroll service/HR duties/etc for pastors and church employees?

Is that what you are envisioning?

[Crystal Lutton]

interesting idea, David. With the unique purpose of our congregation I can honestly say it would be a recipe for disaster for our District to "assign" a pastor to us. Not that I don't have the utmost respect and trust for our District, but because someone not already at our congregation and serving with us is not going to *get* who we are.

[Gary Swartzlander]

My family and I lost some good friends last time the local UMC changed pastors. They had stayed longer than most (7 or 8 years?), simply because he wasn't ordained. I don't understand how all of it works, but apparently everyone familiar with the system knew that as soon as he was ordained, he would be moved. I think some foot-dragging (prompted by more than just the prospect of moving) delayed the ordination process, extending their ministry here and getting their children most of the way through one high school, but, sure enough, he was moved almost immediately upon ordination -- between their daughter's junior and senior year of high school. Perhaps, there were people in the congregation pleased by that happening. The ones I know the best were not.

I don't know that the UMC system as a whole isn't better than what we have, but I'm quite pleased that our pastors are not shuffled every few years by denominational leaders who may know little or nothing about the dynamics of the local church community.

On the other hand, there would be no need to tack on frequent, denominational-prompted moves to David's plan for the denomination to become the employer of pastors.

Marsha

I think I posted this earlier in this thread, but I was raised in the United Methodist Church, and as a teen was a representative on the Church Board, and my Dad was always involved in leadership positions. My worst memories of those days were the constant shuffeling of pastors. Neither the pastor or church were ever able to become familiar with one another before the pastor was moved on to another church. In our town at least, the church suffered greatly because of the lack of consistancy in ministry in our church. It's been such a change and blessing to be part of a Nazarene church with Vision and Growth and the same pastor for 20 years now. I would hate to think that an opportunity like this could be in danger in the future.

[Gary Swartzlander]

One other thought on this topic. Now that I think about it a moment, the one area that probably suffered the most was community outreach. With the pastor needing time to learn the church and the people in it, and then moving, there was never an attempt to reach out into the community. The church was largely made up of old friends and family, it seemed pretty nice at the time, but I've since realized how wrong it is to be comfortable in that. I'm not sure the church was ever given a fair chance to learn how to be an outward growing church.

[Cindi Hammons]

On the flip side, the prospective pastor can't really get to know the board either in that short of a time. It's like the old saying about buying a "pig in a poke." I'm not saying who the pig is...you decide.

[Ryan Scott]

What if, instead of going through a DS, your structure was used to match pastors and churches, based on something or other (maybe an "eharmony" approach?) They wouldn't "assign" pastors, but would make recommendations.

And that structure also provided payroll service/HR duties/etc for pastors and church employees?

Is that what you are envisioning?


Honestly, I don't mind the current state of things. I guess I've just spent enough time in a Pastor's home that I'm learning not to rely on anyone else for those HR questions. I'm also quite committed to finding some place that's a good fit or finding no place at all. We have a lot of pastors who will take a bad fit over nothing. That's where a lot of problems start.

[Dave McClung]

Perhaps my scenario is a bit idealistic. It was based on churches spending 30% of their operating budget on pastoral salary and benefits. If we take our current budget system down to 10%, budgets would increase to a total of 40% of income. But salaries would be taken down to 0%.

But I'm not too good with math. I don't have my glasses on.

So, based on your math you are assuming that the problem of low compensation would not be addressed in the change? It seems to me that if the denomination paid pastors, it would be under a lot of pressure to pay "fairly." If all pastors were paid approximatley the same as a teacher makes in their community, hat would double the amount being paid to pastors, so the budget for salaries would be 60%, not 30%.

[Mike Schutz]

We have a lot of pastors who will take a bad fit over nothing. That's where a lot of problems start.

If some of us waited for a "good fit" we would never pastor. Kind of reminds me of looking for the perfect person to marry. You found one, and I found one, but your wife and my wife sure didn't.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as a good fit church for me. Of course, I'm like Woody Allen. I wouldn't want to attend any church that would have me as its pastor.

[Hans Deventer]

So, based on your math you are assuming that the problem of low compensation would not be addressed in the change? It seems to me that if the denomination paid pastors, it would be under a lot of pressure to pay "fairly."

They can. Understanding that fair payment is related to the income and the number of hours. There is no way a 20-member church can afford a full time pastor. We have an 80 member church that can't afford one.

In our country, you need around 120 members (give or take a few) to be able to pay a full time pastor.

[Barbara Moulton]

On the flip side, the prospective pastor can't really get to know the board either in that short of a time. It's like the old saying about buying a "pig in a poke." I'm not saying who the pig is...you decide.

Yes, boards often have a way of spinning things in a very positive light when they are interviewing prospective pastors.

[Ryan Scott]

If some of us waited for a "good fit" we would never pastor. Kind of reminds me of looking for the perfect person to marry. You found one, and I found one, but your wife and my wife sure didn't.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as a good fit church for me. Of course, I'm like Woody Allen. I wouldn't want to attend any church that would have me as its pastor.


I didn't say a perfect fit, I said a good one. I'm not expecting to have all of my desires for a ministry position met before I take one. I've just seen too many people enter situations they knew were less than ideal simply because they needed the paycheck. Those kids of situations make it difficult for a pastor and congregation to have the kind of relationship necessary to discuss these issues.

[David Pettigrew]

So, based on your math you are assuming that the problem of low compensation would not be addressed in the change? It seems to me that if the denomination paid pastors, it would be under a lot of pressure to pay "fairly." If all pastors were paid approximatley the same as a teacher makes in their community, hat would double the amount being paid to pastors, so the budget for salaries would be 60%, not 30%.



Not really. I'm at 23% and make as much as a starting teacher. Plus I don't pay for my house. Of course, we are pretty much a one income family right now, and most teachers are married women (thus meaning they are likely a two income family.)

But, Dave, you have often brought up that pastors are not paid enough. You have indicated that it is a cause of unhealthy churches. What do you propose be done about it? I think we've given churches 100 years to prove they will provide adequate care for pastors on their own. Many just won't do it.

After receiving the input from this thread, I do not think pastors being paid by the denomination is feasible. However, I think having salary set by the regional office (under your proposal) would be "doable", at least in the USA/Canada. Here's what it could possibly look like:

As a pastor in Texas, I would be on the South Central Region. The regional office has determined that all first year pastors (regionally licensed) are to be paid X amount of dollars. If they have a college degree, they will be paid Y. If they have a master's degree, they will be paid Z. They will continue to be paid by the local church. Consideration would be taken for whether or not the church provides a parsonage, but hopefully parsonages will be phased out eventually in most circumstances. All of this would apply to ministerial staff as well.

With each year of faithful service, cost of living increases are built in. As education is pursued, raises are given, and upon ordination, the pay scale increases.

Churches that cannot afford to support a full time pastor would not get a full time pastor. They can be assigned a supply, or have a bi vocational part time pastor.

Each region would also provide a human resources department as a service to churches and pastors, making sure churches are compliant with labor laws, providing a payroll service (filing 941 for the church, for example), providing benefit resources, etc.

Again, just an idea.

[David Pettigrew]

Honestly, I don't mind the current state of things. I guess I've just spent enough time in a Pastor's home that I'm learning not to rely on anyone else for those HR questions. I'm also quite committed to finding some place that's a good fit or finding no place at all. We have a lot of pastors who will take a bad fit over nothing. That's where a lot of problems start.

Ryan, I'm a little confused. You said you wanted feedback to your idea. I tried to restate your idea to make sure I understood it. I agree with what you are saying here, but are you officially withdrawing your idea?

[Scott Sherwood]

BTW is it so aweful to suggest that before a larger church can hire a 13th fulltime pastor we ought to make sure that all our churches have one fulltime pastor?

Yes. Matthew 25:14-30

Churches functional enough to make use of 13 pastors are not what's dragging our denomination down. If anything, it is trying to find pastors for dysfunctional congregations and trying to find jobs for ineffective pastors that is distracting our District Superintendents from being more missional in their leadership and our Districts from investing more heavily in more missional projects.

I would go further and say that our denominational self-perception is way off base. The majority of our churches are smaller (below 200). The majority of our pastors lead smaller churches. BUT, the majority of our laypeople attend larger churches (over 200). The common experience of our people is a larger church experience. We are not a denomination of churches that are small; we are a denomination of people who attend larger churches.

Our District is fairly small (60 churches and 4889 avg mw att. in Feb '08). Half of our churches are 46 or under, but less than 16% of our people attend one of those churches. The majority of our people attend a church of 177 or larger.

Rather than talk about what is fair and/or most beneficial to the average church and pastor, what if we were to talk about what is fair and/or most beneficial to the average person of our denomination?

An example of the inequity that results is that because of ex-officio delegates from every church regardless of size, the average small church member has about 4 times the representation at district assembly as the average large church member.

[Marsha Lynn]

So, based on your math you are assuming that the problem of low compensation would not be addressed in the change? It seems to me that if the denomination paid pastors, it would be under a lot of pressure to pay "fairly." If all pastors were paid approximatley the same as a teacher makes in their community, hat would double the amount being paid to pastors, so the budget for salaries would be 60%, not 30%.




I don't know about the numbers Dave P. used, but the numbers I used provide for compensation approximately equivalent to a teacher of like experience/education in the local school system. That adds up to 40% of expenditures in a church currently averaging around 55 for Sun. AM worship. I would expect that to be on the top end -- we're already at the teacher salary level in a church barely large enough to support a full-time minister. (Or at least we're close -- I haven't checked the school salary schedule for a year or two).

It seems to me that if you're going to assume a 'typically low' compensation schedule and double it, you need to start with sample data that fits that assumption.

Marsha

[David Pettigrew]

A couple of thoughts:

Eric, wow. That last post was really, really good.

Marsha, I want you to know that I appreciate the sacrifices made in churches like yours to support their pastors. People like you say "no" to a new car every other year so your pastors can keep their heads above water. I believe your church is representative of what many churches are trying to do now. Because so many churches kept pastors in indentured servitude for so long, the perception is still out there that all small churches are that way.

I find it kind of funny that we have made teacher's salary a benchmark for pastor's salaries. I mean, who doesn't want to make as much as those teachers. They're rolling in it!

Seriously, I think my local church takes better care of me than I deserve. I would just like to see some uniformity and accountability brought in.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I find it kind of funny that we have made teacher's salary a benchmark for pastor's salaries. I mean, who doesn't want to make as much as those teachers. They're rolling in it!

I was just thinking about that.

My hope is that this is the benchmark to begin to address the salary levels of pastors.

Goodness knows that teachers are not paid what they are worth.

[Marsha Lynn]

I was just thinking about that.

My hope is that this is the benchmark to begin to address the salary levels of pastors.

Goodness knows that teachers are not paid what they are worth.

At least, unlike pastors, they get a nice summer break. That makes the teacher standard even more questionable.

Actually, I was thrilled when I first encountered the suggestion (on NazNet) of using teachers' salaries as a guideline for assessing one's pastor's compensation. I thought it was a brilliant idea -- publicly available information on the only workforce in our rural area with comparable education and standards. Until then, the only measure we had was whether Pastor P made more than Brother Brown, who figured he worked twice as hard for less money.

Marsha

[Marsha Lynn]

Marsha, I want you to know that I appreciate the sacrifices made in churches like yours to support their pastors. People like you say "no" to a new car every other year so your pastors can keep their heads above water. I believe your church is representative of what many churches are trying to do now. Because so many churches kept pastors in indentured servitude for so long, the perception is still out there that all small churches are that way.


Thanks for your encouraging words. It has indeed been quite a few years since my husband and I have parked a new car in our driveway, but that's not the church's doing. We're hoping to see kid #3 receive her bachelor's degree in May 2009 with no student debt for anyone. Since 2001, we have invested the equivalent of multiple new vehicles in college educations at private institutions - two from Olivet, one from Notre Dame. Whooie, that's an expensive undertaking! And we haven't come even close to paying 'list price' - we have been richly blessed by scholarships and generous grandparents! Still, we have seen odometers click over many more miles than we previously found tolerable.

(Do you suppose those debt-free, educated kids will repay us with a new vehicle? Nah, they have social consciences and are out making the world a better place rather than raking in the dough.)

You're on target, however, about the cost of keeping a church going thru tough times without placing the burden on the pastor's shoulders in the form of inadequate compensation. It requires much sacrifice on the part of many people. I am often in awe of the generosity of the faithful.

As an aside, we are also blessed to have tenants in our fellowship hall during the week. The truth is that we couldn't make it without that rent check. Which truth is a blessing in itself, in that our dependence has finally pretty much stifled the complaints of those who would otherwise throw all those Head Start kids and their messy keepers out on their ears.

Marsha

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Marsha, when David P. brags you on, just remember he is running for GS. Some people will say anything to get elected.

:basic01

[Marsha Lynn]

Marsha, when David P. brags you on, just remember he is running for GS. Some people will say anything to get elected.

:basic01

Oh, duh! How did I forget that? Now I'm, like, totally embarrassed that I responded to his words as though they were sincere. :o

Thanks for the elucidating words, Scott. You're such a blessing. Brad would be proud.

[David Pettigrew]

Is it too late to go back and edit my response to Dave M?

[Cindi Hammons]

I don't know David. Teachers in Ohio make pretty good money compared to other helping professions. New Bachelor's level teachers start out (with no experience) at around $27,000. This MORE than I ever made as a social worker with 15 years experience. When I am done with my master's degree, I will made about $10,000 more than that...with no housing allowances, etc. Keep in mind, these figures are much less than I could make if I were teaching in Columbus or Cincinnati.

I AM NOT saying that this is a grand amount of money and that pastor's should not make a penny more...not at all. I'm just saying that it is a fair profession to gauge salary against. We certainly don't want to pay the pastor's social worker salaries, they would have to go on welfare...no kidding...that's one reason why I quit. In my former church, a teacher's salary would place them in the top 25% of earners (if not higher).

[David Pettigrew]

I wonder if a pastor can minister effectively to his or her flock if they make significantly more or significantly less than the laity they serve.

May seem like a silly idea. After all, my daughter's pediatrician makes loads more than I make, but he can still diagnose her ear infection.

The hispanic lady at Jack in the Box makes a pitance compared to me, but she can still flip my burger.

But, I somehow feel the ministry is (once again) different.

[Cindi Hammons]

I think it is very wrong of a congregation to ask the pastor to make less than the average salary of the church people. I don't know how this could be accomplished as most people don't want to share their salaries, but it would be good to get an average salary of the congregation...from the people perpetually on welfare to the physician. I am a strong proponent of good salaries for pastors (to many horror stories about pastoral families living on ramen noodles). But I also think salaries should be fair...no demands for a standard of living that the majority of the congregation cannot live, much less support (unfortunately I've seen that too, though not in a long time).

[Ryan Scott]

Ryan, I'm a little confused. You said you wanted feedback to your idea. I tried to restate your idea to make sure I understood it. I agree with what you are saying here, but are you officially withdrawing your idea?


I only offered it as a possible solution to your critiques of the current system. I was merely stating that it doesn't matter to me what system is in place, because I'm not planning on relying it to come through for me.

[Ryan Scott]

I am a strong proponent of good salaries for pastors (to many horror stories about pastoral families living on ramen noodles).


Even if I get paid well, we might end up living on Ramen noodles, my wife grew up in pastor's home and ate a lot of them; she's really developed a taste for them.

[Marsha Lynn]

I also think salaries should be fair...no demands for a standard of living that the majority of the congregation cannot live, much less support.

That's what makes the teacher comparison so attractive to me. How many public school teachers live in luxury compared to the families of their students? It seems that they are typically viewed in any setting as appropriately-compensated professionals.

Marsha

[Lee Ellingson]

Eric ... A quick response to your question about average tenure. I have no idea what it is in the UMC. However, as of January 2006, the average tenure of Nazarene pastorates had risen to ~4 1/2 years. I emailed the office of our General Secretary to obtain that information.

[Bob Carabbio]

I realized that I mis-spoke rather terribly in what I wrote - in stating that the AoG Church Board (deacon board) "Hires" the pastor. Maybe "old-timer's" syndrome is settling in - you wouldn't think I'd miss something THAT significant (now where'd I leave my teeth??).

In fact the Board DOES negotiate with the pastoral candidate, is empowered to discuss and set salaries, split the compensation into the proper categories for tax purposes, decide on the "moving package" that would be offered, sets the schedule for the "tryout meeting", and assuming a favorable reaction to THAT, his assumption of the office.

HOWEVER - the Board must then submit the candidate of their choice to the congregation in a pre-announced "business meeting" called for the purpose of electing the candidate AFTER he actually COMES to the church and "tries out" - normally during the Morning service so that the congregation can actually MEET him and his family (The Candidate's wife and kids are always a BIG part of the overall package).

The congregation with a defined quorum present will then VOTE THEIR approval as indicated by EITHER a simple majority, or in many cases the requirement of a 2/3 majority depending on the by-laws.

If things go "normally" (for AOG elections) the vote will be unanimous, or almost so.

Our last election was all "Yes" except for one "NO", and one "Maybe". We weren't sure just HOW to interpret a "maybe" vote (nothing in the by-laws about that). Fortunately it didn't matter so we extended the "Call" to the candidate, and he accepted.

[William Hunter]

I agree with you, Marsha. We have too much micro-managing that goes on now. And we desperately need to cut out some of the administrative levels of the church so that less money in the local church is sent elsewhere. Adding a level to administer pastor's salaries just seems to me to justify more upper level management when we absolutely need less. My people do not agree now with how much we have to send out so that dist. and gen. leaders can be made "happy and receive their paychecks." Most of my people just cannot justify sending so much money out of the local church.

And yes, some of my people have figured out ways to financially help the church without making it pass through the church books. It is very much past time for some substantive changes in the administrative levels of the church. An idea that would create more demand for money to be sent out of the local church would not set well here where I pastor and would be met with very strong resistance, if not full refusal to participate. And believe it or not, some would label my people less than good Nazarenes or question whether they are Christians for their resistance, but those who do that are in serious need of a reality check.



Man, you're not a-kidding about the paradigm shift. "Increased budgets" is quite an understatement.

In the 2006-07 church year, just short of 40% of the disbursements made by my small church went to pastoral compensation (including benefits but not business expenses). Another 20% went to budgets. Assuming that we would still be responsible for providing adequate compensation for our pastor, only via a middleman organization, and with continuing support for the denomination at large and world missions, we would need to start sending 60% of what comes into the local church to Kansas City. Even cutting existing budgets to 10% would still mean sending 50% to headquarters.

I can't imagine a more demoralizing scenario. Half of every dollar put in the offering plate would disappear into some pit totally beyond our control. Giving more money would pay our pastor no better; giving less would pay him no less.

I'm pretty sure that I can tell you exactly what would happen locally: People would find ways to give that circumvented the offering plate. I already see that happening to some extent because of a negative view of the budget system. Why put money in the plate when you can simply go out and buy stuff for the church and not have to pay "taxes" on it? The church has to buy the stuff anyway. Doing it oneself gives the added satisfaction of getting to select brand, quality, color, and timing -- all the benefits of giving without the discomfort of actually entrusting the gift to the whims of church leadership at any level. And opportunity to scratch the consumerism itch at the same time!

There's hardly any expense of the local church that couldn't be handled in that fashion, even the mortgage and utilities, and I envision many giving in to the pressure to do so -- in the name of good stewardship, of course. I protested the "tax" mindset concerning budgets in a recent thread, but I would have to give in to that view at this level. It would certainly be beyond my 'persuasive speech' skills to persuade anyone that a 50% to 60% tariff on local income by the denomination is a particularly generous 'tithe' to be given cheerfully in expectation of blessing in return. There would be no disguising such a burdensome tax. It would generate the same type and intensity of temptation to find loopholes that burdensome taxes always generate.

Are there denominations that use this model? If so, how do they persuade local churches to contribute their share of the pastoral compensation money?

I can certainly sympathize with the desire of pastors to get away from being employed by the local church. It's an awkward arrangement, at best. I just can't get my mind around the idea of sending our pastoral compensation money off for someone else to administer.

Marsha

[David Pettigrew]

This is probably the definitive study on this subject:

http://www.pulpitandpew.duke.edu/salarystudy.pdf

If you don't have an hour to wade through it, let me break it down for you. Basically, they looked at the three ways pastors are paid, based on church government polity:

Centralized - clergy are paid by the denomination. The Roman Catholic church is the only example of this.

Connectional - clergy pay is determined by the denomination, but clergy are paid by the local church. The United Methodists fall into this category.

Congregational - clergy pay is determined by the free market, with no interference from the denomination. The Southern Baptists use this method (and so do we.)

Here's the interesting thing. The lowest paid clergy are in the centralized category. Priests of 1,000 member parishes make basically the same as priests of 20 member parishes - very little.

The average pay of clergy in the connectional category is significantly higher than the other two categories.

There are pastors making astounding salaries in the congregational category, but that's because this category also includes independent mega churches. The vast number of churches in this category are small, so the average pay is still far lower than that of clergy in the connectional churches.

So, it would seem to me that if we want to raise clergy pay, the worst thing we could do is centralize, and the best thing we do is adopt the Methodist system (or some variety of it.)

It's basically just like economics. Full control is bad, and no control is bad. Some control is good.

[Eric Vail]

This is probably the definitive study on this subject:

http://www.pulpitandpew.duke.edu/salarystudy.pdf

If you don't have an hour to wade through it, let me break it down for you. Basically, they looked at the three ways pastors are paid, based on church government polity:

Centralized - clergy are paid by the denomination. The Roman Catholic church is the only example of this.

Connectional - clergy pay is determined by the denomination, but clergy are paid by the local church. The United Methodists fall into this category.

Congregational - clergy pay is determined by the free market, with no interference from the denomination. The Southern Baptists use this method (and so do we.)

Here's the interesting thing. The lowest paid clergy are in the centralized category. Priests of 1,000 member parishes make basically the same as priests of 20 member parishes - very little.

The average pay of clergy in the connectional category is significantly higher than the other two categories.

There are pastors making astounding salaries in the congregational category, but that's because this category also includes independent mega churches. The vast number of churches in this category are small, so the average pay is still far lower than that of clergy in the connectional churches.

So, it would seem to me that if we want to raise clergy pay, the worst thing we could do is centralize, and the best thing we do is adopt the Methodist system (or some variety of it.)

It's basically just like economics. Full control is bad, and no control is bad. Some control is good.

Let's not forget that Catholic priests do not have families to support. The RC Church's payment of their priests can be much lower for that and many other reasons. E.g., the priest who lives in my building needed a new car. Instead of buying one out of his meager salary, he put in a request to the diocese and received a new car. Thus, for many reasons the Catholic pay-scale does not make a good comparison against the others of how they really are taking care of their clergy. It would be possible to adopt the system and factor in other variables (such as most of our pastors have spouses and families) that would up the base salary.

[Ryan Scott]

Let's not forget that Catholic priests do not have families to support. The RC Church's payment of their priests can be much lower for that and many other reasons. E.g., the priest who lives in my building needed a new car. Instead of buying one out of his meager salary, he put in a request to the diocese and received a new car. Thus, for many reasons the Catholic pay-scale does not make a good comparison against the others of how they really are taking care of their clergy. It would be possible to adopt the system and factor in other variables (such as most of our pastors have spouses and families) that would up the base salary.

I was just going to post something similar. They also have a pretty secure retirement waiting for them as well, if they ever choose to retire.

[Mike Schutz]

I was just going to post something similar. They also have a pretty secure retirement waiting for them as well, if they ever choose to retire.

And at the beginning of their career, depending on when they made the decision to go into the priesthood, they would not have college and seminary loans to pay.

[David Pettigrew]

Yeah, well I say 20,000 dollars a year is 20,000 dollars a year no matter how you slice it. I'll keep my salary, buy my own car, and sleep next to my wife tonight.

[Billy Cox]

The average pay of clergy in the connectional category is significantly higher than the other two categories.

There are pastors making astounding salaries in the congregational category, but that's because this category also includes independent mega churches. The vast number of churches in this category are small, so the average pay is still far lower than that of clergy in the connectional churches.

So, it would seem to me that if we want to raise clergy pay, the worst thing we could do is centralize, and the best thing we do is adopt the Methodist system (or some variety of it.)

It's basically just like economics. Full control is bad, and no control is bad. Some control is good.

How interesting that a thread entitled 'Pastors' is talking mostly about money. This finally confirms my bias as a layperson that all pastors really care about is money. :basic03

A centralized system will not see the light of the day in the Church of the Nazarene because we like the idea that an exceptional pastor should receive exceptional reward.

What I can envision is a formula defining a level of minimum compensation for each local church based on local household incomes and cost of living. We already have a research department that could develop such a formula based on real data.

For churches not currently meeting that minimum, they would then choose whether to raise their pastor's compensation or convert the position into a bivocational assignment and adjust expectations accordingly.

Another variation could generate a 'suggested minimum pastor's salary/benefits' for each local church and make that a matter of public record. A prospective pastor could then compare the current pastor's salary/benefits with the suggested minimum. This would at least allow pastoral candidates to know what they're getting into.

[Mike Schutz]

How interesting that a thread entitled 'Pastors' is talking mostly about money. This finally confirms my bias as a layperson that all pastors really care about is money. :basic03


While you were kidding, you do make a good point - it is very difficult for a prospective pastor to even raise the issue of compensation.

This is one topic that should not be left to the pastoral candidate to raise. It should be discussed by the board and DS, and a written salary and benefits package should be given to any pastoral candidate. If the church is not meeting the compensation expectations of the district, the DS should address the issue prior to any conversations with candidates.

[David Pettigrew]

A centralized system will not see the light of the day in the Church of the Nazarene because we like the idea that an exceptional pastor should receive exceptional reward.

I believe we already have this system of reward. It's called the district superintendency.

If the idea won't see the light of day, and the idea is present here, does it mean naznet is in the dark?

[Hal Paul]

Eric ... A quick response to your question about average tenure. I have no idea what it is in the UMC. However, as of January 2006, the average tenure of Nazarene pastorates had risen to ~4 1/2 years. I emailed the office of our General Secretary to obtain that information.

This discussion (http://support.hartsem.edu/pipermail/rrx/2006-February/000157.html)is kind of hard to read, but it looks like the average tenure of pastor in the UMC isn't much different (4.42 years) than the average tenure of a Nazarene pastor, so changing to their system of pastoral appointment would probably do little to affect the amount of time that a pastor served at a particular church.

[Hal Paul]

I think it is very wrong of a congregation to ask the pastor to make less than the average salary of the church people. I don't know how this could be accomplished as most people don't want to share their salaries, but it would be good to get an average salary of the congregation...from the people perpetually on welfare to the physician. I am a strong proponent of good salaries for pastors (to many horror stories about pastoral families living on ramen noodles). But I also think salaries should be fair...no demands for a standard of living that the majority of the congregation cannot live, much less support (unfortunately I've seen that too, though not in a long time).

Paying the pastor so s/he makes the average salary of the congregation may be easier said than done. Especially if the church is small, there may be only a handful of working adults, even if they all tithe and give generously, the combined total may not add up to their average salary.

[Ryan Scott]

Paying the pastor so s/he makes the average salary of the congregation may be easier said than done. Especially if the church is small, there may be only a handful of working adults, even if they all tithe and give generously, the combined total may not add up to their average salary.


In those situations, the salary could be supplemented by the pastor with other employment and a reduction of pastoral expectations. At least this should be the first option; if the pastor chooses to take less, then I suppose that should be allowed.

[Dennis M. Scott]

There are just too many variables in local churches for the application of principles discussed here to be helpful. An average is only an average. While there are some churches that have boards wanting to keep their pasor poor, those are definitely in the minority. Local history is also a factor: not only the local church history, but the history of the attitude and behavior of the last several pastors. Each pastor has unique financial needs and priorities. Many smaller churches would have drastically different financial pictures without the pastor's contribution pattern. It does little good to say it shouldn't be that way: most pastors and congregations are attempting to respond to the leadership of the Holy Spirit. Not only are we unable to put the Holy Spirit into any forumla, but it is even more difficult to put into a box human perceptions of how the Holy Spirit works.
Each pastor has unique gifts and abilities, spouses, etc. Some pastors are able to multitask well, and bivocational ministry is not only possible, but perhaps best for the local church, as well - not only from the financial side, but for the sake of relationsihps within the church.
Personal finance around the world is a horrid picture, and to think that the local church is the answer for pastors is probably a little archaic. Few workers' financial pictures are being solved by their employers. If that seems peculiar, it may reveal how unrealistic expectations are.

[Billy Cox]

While you were kidding, you do make a good point - it is very difficult for a prospective pastor to even raise the issue of compensation.

This is one topic that should not be left to the pastoral candidate to raise. It should be discussed by the board and DS, and a written salary and benefits package should be given to any pastoral candidate. If the church is not meeting the compensation expectations of the district, the DS should address the issue prior to any conversations with candidates.

Mike, I like the signature...

[Billy Cox]

I believe we already have this system of reward. It's called the district superintendency.

If the idea won't see the light of day, and the idea is present here, does it mean naznet is in the dark?

Well, if we want to play word games, the idea won't be practiced in real life.

I am not convinced that becoming a DS is a natural career path for an exceptional pastor.

[David Pettigrew]

So in bringing up the topic of pastoral compensation, the thread has kind of progressed thusly...

Idea # 1 - Pastors could be paid by the denomination
Response - "Boo. Hiss. Give us Barabbas."

Idea # 2 - Ok, well then pastor salaries could be set by the denomination
Response - This will never see the light of day.

Idea # 3 - Well, what if minimal pastoral salaries could be set by the denomination
Response - Too many variable for this to work.

Idea #4 - Let the Holy Spirit be your guide in determining pastoral compensation.
Response - :gen07

So, let's move on to the topic of the calling of the pastor. Here is your topic: The "pastoral interview" is neither "pastoral" nor an "interview". Discuss.

As a side note, when elected GS, I prefer you all to refer to me as "Apostle."

[David Pettigrew]

Well, if we want to play word games, the idea won't be practiced in real life.

I am not convinced that becoming a DS is a natural career path for an exceptional pastor.

Both of my statements were meant to be funny. We need a button similar to "bold" or "italics" we can hit that makes our text appear sarcastic.

[Hans Deventer]

Idea # 3 - Well, what if minimal pastoral salaries could be set by the denomination
Response - Too many variable for this to work.

Probably, but it can be done by the district. We have it.

The great thing about it is that now you get discussions on "for how many days a week can we pay a pastor?".

[Cindi Hammons]

Apostle David,

Why not move this to a separate thread? I'm sure Hans or Scott would assist you with this and it wouldn't get all muddled up with the previous topic.

Your most humble servant,

[David Pettigrew]

Apostle David,

Why not move this to a separate thread? I'm sure Hans or Scott would assist you with this and it wouldn't get all muddled up with the previous topic.

Your most humble servant,

You DARE question an apostle? Talk like that will get you excommunicated.

[Ryan Scott]

Isn't this part of talking about Pastors?

[Ryan Scott]

I don't know much about pastoral interviews, but the one thing I've learn from my friends' experience leaving seminary: make sure the DS is there. One friend had an interview without the DS present and the interview lasted eight hours - straight.

[David Pettigrew]

I've interviewed with DS present and without DS present, and most definitely prefer the DS to be there.

[Marsha Lynn]

I don't know much about pastoral interviews, but the one thing I've learn from my friends' experience leaving seminary: make sure the DS is there. One friend had an interview without the DS present and the interview lasted eight hours - straight.

What? You have a problem with a long interview? How else can a church board ascertain the effectiveness of the candidate's sanctification under pressure? Anyone can SAY they're entirely sanctified, but there's nothing like an eight-hour interview to discover the truth behind the testimony.

As a lay person who has not been involved in a single interview with a new pastor, I'm seeing red flags here. If you can't stand the heat, you might need to stay out of the kitchen, Ryan.

(:joke)

(:reallyjustajoke; :nosmitingplease)

Hmm... shake, shake, shake. These emoticons seem to be broken.

Marsha

[Ryan Scott]

Well, I guess I could take the eight hours, but I'd insist on lunch.

[David Pettigrew]

I'd insist on dessert.

[David Pettigrew]

and smoke breaks

[William Hunter]

If a local church cannot support a pastor on a true living wage, then they should merge with another church/es, or we should consider a circut approach for those where a merge is geographically difficult.




Paying the pastor so s/he makes the average salary of the congregation may be easier said than done. Especially if the church is small, there may be only a handful of working adults, even if they all tithe and give generously, the combined total may not add up to their average salary.

[Hal Paul]

If a local church cannot support a pastor on a true living wage, then they should merge with another church/es, or we should consider a circut approach for those where a merge is geographically difficult.

I'm all for a circut approach, but I think it would have to be done as a district appointed position rather than the pastor being called by a local church board. I just don't know of any board who would be willing to "share" their pastor with another church. Of course, I also know of a lot of boards who don't mind their pastor being bivocational, so it really shouldn't be much of a leap to convince them that a pastorate at another church is the other job.

Mergers aren't a bad idea either, if there is another local church in the area. I think though that a lot of the smaller churches are too far away from another church, even a larger one, to make mergers feasable, and often we have a similar problem when it comes to having two churches that can't pay a living wage. In part, the challenge would be timing vacancies of the small churches to allow for apointment of a circut pastor. Maybe where feasable, when a pulpit becomes available, a bivocational pastor from a nearby church could be appointed pastor to a second or third church.

I wonder if we could make a condition that in order for a church to be allowed to call a pastor, it must first demonstrate that it is able to pay a living wage. That might make appointing pastors to circuts more practicable.

I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud.

[Ryan Scott]

I think the more important thing to understand is that congregations have life cycles. They aren't made to exist forever. If we got away from the idea that closing a church is equal to failure, we might have more success in this area.

Like all things, there is a definitive cycle and congregations who recognize a decline are more able to set a new congregation off on the right footing than waiting until there are five people left and just giving up.

[Mike Schutz]

Well, I guess I could take the eight hours, but I'd insist on lunch.

I know that this was meant as a joke, but it actually is a good idea. Not the eight hours - at least not eight straight hours. What is a good idea is the eating.

I recommend that one aspect of every pastoral interview process involve a nice meal with the board (or the search committee) and the prospective pastor and spouse.

You can find out a great deal about someone by sharing a meal with them - including how he/she treats the waitstaff.

[Eric Frey]

I'm all for a circut approach, but I think it would have to be done as a district appointed position rather than the pastor being called by a local church board. I just don't know of any board who would be willing to "share" their pastor with another church...

I wonder if we could make a condition that in order for a church to be allowed to call a pastor, it must first demonstrate that it is able to pay a living wage. That might make appointing pastors to circuts more practicable.

I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud.

We already limit which churches can call their own pastors. Right now we define that by voting members. Many churches this would effect already have their pastors appointed. It would simply be a matter of changing the qualification from "voting members" to "financial support." I don't think that would be too difficult.

[Ron Davis]

Mergers aren't a bad idea either, if there is another local church in the area. .

What is the success rate of church mergers. None of the churches that I know of that have undergone a merger have succeeded. It seems like in a very short time the combined churches attendance is about equal to the attendance of the larger church prior to the merger. When that happens it becomes a more painful way of closing a church.

[Marsha Lynn]

You can find out a great deal about someone by sharing a meal with them - including how he/she treats the waitstaff.

True. I don't know who said it originally, but I like this line I once saw quoted by Dave Barry: A person who is nice to you but rude to the waitress is not a nice person.

Hmm... there might be opportunity in this. The board could choose an eating establishment where someone has the influence to make sure that a spill "accidentally" happens. That could save everyone several hours on the sanctification test.

;)

[Hal Paul]

What is the success rate of church mergers. None of the churches that I know of that have undergone a merger have succeeded. It seems like in a very short time the combined churches attendance is about equal to the attendance of the larger church prior to the merger. When that happens it becomes a more painful way of closing a church.

I don't know. I only know of one church merger, and I understand it followed the pattern you describe. So, maybe some caution is necessary before merging congregations.

[Ryan Scott]

I recommend that one aspect of every pastoral interview process involve a nice meal with the board (or the search committee) and the prospective pastor and spouse.


What do you mean by "nice?" Would they let me in with my jeans and Eastern Nazarene College T-shirt?

[John Kennedy]

William -

On your post (above) I noticed that I had marked it funny. Although I am told I can see humor in many situations, the situation you described certainly isn't one of them. There should have been a 'thanks', no 'laugh'.

[John Kennedy]

[As a side note, when elected GS, I prefer you all to refer to me as "Apostle."[/QUOTE]


Will viewing the classic Robert Duvall movie of the same name be required before voting on this matter? Also, will you be rebaptizing yourself, and what mode will be used?

[John Kennedy]

Effective merger for SOME congregations may only be possible when all involved have died, or at least, forgotten why there were two separate congregations in the first place.

I saw one merger years ago where the 'lay church planters' for a new congregation, shortly after the completion of a new building, decided they didn't like the 'soil' and departed for a more congenial setting.

Fortunately there was another Nazarene congregation in the same city that needed to relocate - a clear 'save'. Don't know what might've happened otherwise.

There are probably too many places where little, if any, attention was paid to demographic factors before starting another church and the area's resources simply cannot support it.

[David Pettigrew]

I would point out the example of Beaumont, Texas. This is a second-tier city in Texas (not one of the "biggies", like Dallas and Houston, but a metropolitan area by any standard.) There have been five fairly strong Nazarene churches in Beaumont. Through the result of mergers, there are now none. Not saying this was the only factor, but merging didn't help anything.

[John Kennedy]

David -

I am aware of a denominational merger situation about 40 years ago that resulted in 5 or 6 (depending on how you counted) denominations where there had been 2. If I had the opportunity of writing a history of the merger the title would probably be "And the Two Became Six". Funny math - 1+1=6. In the case you cited 1+1+1+1+1=0.

Are you aware of any demographic factors that might have contributed to the situation you described?

[David Pettigrew]

David -

I am aware of a denominational merger situation about 40 years ago that resulted in 5 or 6 (depending on how you counted) denominations where there had been 2. If I had the opportunity of writing a history of the merger the title would probably be "And the Two Became Six". Funny math - 1+1=6. In the case you cited 1+1+1+1+1=0.

Are you aware of any demographic factors that might have contributed to the situation you described?

No, but I am aware of health reasons that contributed.

The Church of the Nazarene resulted from the merger of several spiritually healthy groups that thought they could spread their message more efficiently by joining forces.

Most church mergers are the result of one healthy group absorbing an unhealthy group, or two unhealthy groups joining forces. They're just combining problems.

It's kind of like a mentally balanced person marrying a mentally ill person. The mentally ill person doesn't get any better, but the balanced person often gets worse.

[Billy Cox]

What is the success rate of church mergers. None of the churches that I know of that have undergone a merger have succeeded. It seems like in a very short time the combined churches attendance is about equal to the attendance of the larger church prior to the merger. When that happens it becomes a more painful way of closing a church.

This was a question addressed when I worked for the Nazarene Research Center at HQ. Here are some examples of how the formula plays out over 1-2 years post-merger:

1 church of 50 + 1 church of 50 = 1 church of 50.

1 church of 100 + 1 church of 50 = 1 church of 100.


I think that the better strategy is to close a non-performing church and within a couple of years start a new one.

[Hans Deventer]

This was a question addressed when I worked for the Nazarene Research Center at HQ. Here are some examples of how the formula plays out over 1-2 years post-merger:

1 church of 50 + 1 church of 50 = 1 church of 50.

1 church of 100 + 1 church of 50 = 1 church of 100.


I think that the better strategy is to close a non-performing church and within a couple of years start a new one.

Billy, did they also research WHY this is so? That would be more interesting than the formula.

[David Pettigrew]

My hypothesis - churches are organic, not mechanical. They are like living things. You can take parts from two broken cars, put them together, and make a working car. But you can't take parts from two broken people, put them together, and have a working person. You can't take parts from two broken churches, put them together, and have a working church.

Unhealthy churches decline. The people that are left after years of decline are still there, not because they believe the church is healthy and everybody that left was just missing it, but b/c they love that particular church. When you merge it with another church, it ceases to be that particular church anymore, so there's really no reason to stick around. The church you loved is dead.

[Roland Hearn]

My hypothesis - churches are organic, not mechanical. They are like living things. You can take parts from two broken cars, put them together, and make a working car. But you can't take parts from two broken people, put them together, and have a working person. You can't take parts from two broken churches, put them together, and have a working church.

Unhealthy churches decline. The people that are left after years of decline are still there, not because they believe the church is healthy and everybody that left was just missing it, but b/c they love that particular church. When you merge it with another church, it ceases to be that particular church anymore, so there's really no reason to stick around. The church you loved is dead.

David this is really well said, Billy's formula is pretty much spot on and this is a perfect answer to the question why. I don't think it has to be that way but more often then not the reason a church is at the place of merger is the reason the merger will not be successful.

[Susan Unger]

Both of my statements were meant to be funny. We need a button similar to "bold" or "italics" we can hit that makes our text appear sarcastic.

We also need a LAME button for comments like this - "As a side note, when elected GS, I prefer you all to refer to me as "Apostle." " :basic03

[Susan Unger]

The board could choose an eating establishment where someone has the influence to make sure that a spill "accidentally" happens. That could save everyone several hours on the sanctification test.;)

Excellent idea!

[David Pettigrew]

From Dave's original proposal:

12. Matching local churches with pastors – The current system is broken. It is debatable whether or not the system has ever worked as intended. Our forefathers hoped to blend the best of the Episcopal System with the best of the Congregational System. In reality, we have a system that has most of the problems of both systems. I suggest that we adopt the Methodist system or something like it.

In order to become a "newstart" pastor in the CotN, you must go through an assessment to determine if you have the gifts and graces necessary. I would recommend a similar system for pastor/congregation matching.

Not talking about "assigning" pastors to congregations. I'm talking about using a system to match potential candidates with available congregations according to gifts, experience, passion, personality, and local needs.

Here's a possible scenario.

1.) Podunk Fourth church had the same pastor for 17 years. When she retired, the district assigned them a transitional church consultant (currently known as an "interim pastor") certifiedin church health assessment, coaching, and mentoring. After three months assessment period, the consultant submits a completed church profile to the district office. (Retired elders wishing to supplement their income could go through the certification process to do this job, for example.)

2.) The consultant then goes online to a data bank of candidate profiles (we have this in place already for those seeking staff positions), using some type of "matching" software (yet to be developed). The consultant pulls the contact information for the top five "matching" candidates, then contacts them to set up phone interviews.

3.) The consultant conducts intensive phone interviews with each interested candidate. After prayerful consideration, and in communication with the district,the consultant arranges for the candidate he or she feels is the best "fit" to come in for an onsite visit. This would include the "board interview" component of the placement, but certainly wouldn't be limited to that.

4.) Pending a successful visit, a two year contract is negotiated, renewable upon pastoral review.

5.) If the onsite visit doesn't result in a placement (board, candidate, or consultant declines), another candidate is brought in. This is repeated until successful placement.

6.) The new pastor, upon arrival, remains in a coaching relationship with the consulting pastor (per a once a month phone conference).

Salary for the transitional consultants (normally elders at retirement or near retirement age, or those who feel specifically called to this job) would be paid by the local church. They would be certified through a training process, and remain in constant communication with the district office.

Comments?

[David Pettigrew]

What, nothing?

Flattery? Insults? The throwing of rotten tomatoes?

Come on, people. Say something even if it's wrong.

[Ryan Scott]

Uh, if that were the process, it would pretty much kill any desire I would ever have to pastor a congregation. I like the idea of having someone specifically trained to manage a transition, but the whole computer matching thing lost me.

[David Pettigrew]

Thanks for your honest feedback. I think the idea of "computer matching" has some scary implications, because when computers mess up, that really mess up (danger, Will Robinson).

Here's my dilemma. How can we objectively determine if a pastor is a good "fit" for a congregation? Not if they are nice, or talented, or even called, but if they have the particular gifts, graces, passions, and personality for a particular assignment. Our history has proven that we don't do a good job of this by just leaving it up to the Holy Spirit.

Just because you can preach a good sermon does not mean you are a good fit for every church. Yet, this is the main criteria most local churches use in determining to call you. Much heartache ensues.

What I'm envisioning is about a hundred question survey each pastor seeking an assignment would complete. Here are some example questions:

Place a number beside each statement that most corresponds with how you feel:
1. disagree 2. somewhat disagree 3. no feelings either way 4. agree somewhat 5. agree.
1.) I derive great fulfillment from visiting people in the hospital. _____
2.) I tend to avoid conflict at all costs. _____
3.) My idea of a relaxing time is creating an art project _____
4.) Being close to major shopping centers is essential for me _____
5.) A church should pay dues to local civic organizations for their pastor _____

These are just off the top of my head.

If I absolutely hate making hospital calls, why would I want to be considered at a church that considers it an essential part of pastoral ministry? You may think that would never happen. You would be way wrong. Some sort of system would help avoid these kinds of mismatches.