Does your Pastor have life insurance?

[John Reilly]

I just recently attended the funeral of a Pastor friend (not Nazarene) who had suspended life insurance temporarily due to financial limitations. Obviously this was an unwise decision in light of his sudden death at age 54. May I take this grievous opportunity to challenge every pastor and church leader to insure the proper life insurance of clergy. Perhaps the forum host might formulate a poll to measure how many pastors actually have life insurance.

[Ryan Scott]

We've got basic coverage right now through Katelynn's employer. With a child on the way, we'll have to re-evaluate how we do life insurance.

[David Pettigrew]

If your pastor is an ordained elder in the CotN, then your pastor has term life insurance. Or at least we used to. Maybe that's changed in recent days.

[Gina Stevenson]

Not just pastors ... it can be a nightmare for a lot of people when it is lacking! So I would consider this a warning to anyone ........

[Bud Pugh]

If your pastor is an ordained elder in the CotN, then your pastor has term life insurance. Or at least we used to. Maybe that's changed in recent days.

They do so long as their church pays at least $1 of their P&B goal. They get an Annual Pension Supplement when the church pays 50% of said goal. Read all about it here: http://www.pbusa.org/index.php?optio...ews&Itemid=330 and more here: http://www.pbusa.org/index.php?optio...ews&Itemid=399

[David Pettigrew]

I'd hate to be a part of the church that sent in exactly one dollar to P & B.

[Hans Deventer]

I'd hate to be a part of the church that sent in exactly one dollar to P & B.

You'd make it $ 1.41?

[John Dahl]

I'm trying to figure out out what the title of this thread is implying. Would this be the same as asking if any Joe Layman has life insurance? Am I missing something important here specific to the pastor or is it a general concern for everybody?

[Hans Deventer]

I'm trying to figure out out what the title of this thread is implying. Would this be the same as asking if any Joe Layman has life insurance? Am I missing something important here specific to the pastor or is it a general concern for everybody?

As I understand it, John, it appears that John Reilly spoke out of a specific experience, and that's where the specific question came from.

[Marian Schwaller Carney]

I suggest, and John of course can correct me, but the issue here is that a pastor, who gave so much to his church and the community, was not compensated by his church enough to be able to maintain life insurance for his family. When he had to decide his own budget could not cover the expense, the church had a good opportunity (which perhaps it did not know about) to step in on this important provision.

I don't know what he died of, but I know it was a sudden medical issue, and, naturally, the stress of the pastor's job comes to mind at the top of the list as a primary contributor to the cause of death. (I do not know in this case). Church leaders need to consider what to do about both concern and provision for their pastor's family. Hence, this is unlike a general layperson financial planning issue. The family lives in a church provided parsonage, and I suspect there is no equity in other privately held property for this family to now tap into. At some point they will have to move out of the parsonage.

[John Dahl]

When he had to decide his own budget could not cover the expense, the church had a good opportunity (which perhaps it did not know about) to step in on this important provision.

Would I be wrong in assuming that the church would have been compensating this pastor up to the point they could afford, and if so, how would they, the church, been able to afford to pay a life insurance policy for the pastor?

[Hans Deventer]

Would I be wrong in assuming that the church would have been compensating this pastor up to the point they could afford, and if so, how would they, the church, been able to afford to pay a life insurance policy for the pastor?

Yes. What church cannot afford $1 ?

[John Dahl]

Yes. What church cannot afford $1 ?

Marian did not say anything about life insurance through P & B. She said:

the church had a good opportunity (which perhaps it did not know about) to step in on this important provision.

This implies life insurance other than that through P & B because that budget would have already been expected to be paid.

[Jon Twitchell]

Marian did not say anything about life insurance through P & B. She said:



This implies life insurance other than that through P & B because that budget would have already been expected to be paid.

And if that budget had been paid, then he had a $15,000 life insurance policy (we're assuming this is a Nazarene pastor/church). If they had not paid the budget, the simple payment of $1 would have resulted in a basic policy--enough to help cover funeral expenses.

Whenever we have to make cuts as a church, I would prefer that they cut my cash salary, as opposed to my benefits. Basic health and life insurance are common parts of employee benefit packages, and there are particular reasons (alluded to already) that pastors (in particular) ought to have at least a minimal life insurance policy. The reality that their family will need to vacate the parsonage within 30 days is one compelling concern.

[John Dahl]

Yes. What church cannot afford $1 ?

Or another way to say this is: What pastor cannot afford $1? Nothing precludes the pastor giving the $1 to the church and instructing the treasurer to pass it on to P&B. Just another way to look at it.

[John Dahl]

And if that budget had been paid, then he had a $15,000 life insurance policy (we're assuming this is a Nazarene pastor/church). If they had not paid the budget, the simple payment of $1 would have resulted in a basic policy--enough to help cover funeral expenses.

Whenever we have to make cuts as a church, I would prefer that they cut my cash salary, as opposed to my benefits. Basic health and life insurance are common parts of employee benefit packages, and there are particular reasons (alluded to already) that pastors (in particular) ought to have at least a minimal life insurance policy. The reality that their family will need to vacate the parsonage within 30 days is one compelling concern.

This is the insidious nature of employer paid benefits. The employee thinks they are getting something over and above their "cash" salary. Benefits are just a transfer to another form of salary. The church I attend we determine the dollar value of the pastor's salary every new church year and then out of this amount he, the pastor, massages that into whatever form he wants. He knows the amount he needs for health ins., S.S. and Medicare taxes, income taxes, annuity, life insurance, or whatever allowances he deems important to him. The balance is his cash salary. This way everything is laid on the table and there are no false expectations from either direction.

I have always had very smart pastors and I have never felt any of them needed somebody from the church to look over their shoulders to make sure they had things like life insurance. Things like the old fashioned food poundings are now frowned upon because the pastors feel like, and rightly so, that they can be trusted to buy their own food. Well the same is true of everything else in the life of the pastor. If there needs to be a discussion on the church not paying their pastors enough, well that is a totally different subject than whether the church needs to make sure the pastor has life insurance.

[John Kennedy]

This is the insidious nature of employer paid benefits. The employee thinks they are getting something over and above their "cash" salary. Benefits are just a transfer to another form of salary. The church I attend we determine the dollar value of the pastor's salary every new church year and then out of this amount he, the pastor, massages that into whatever form he wants. He knows the amount he needs for health ins., S.S. and Medicare taxes, income taxes, annuity, life insurance, or whatever allowances he deems important to him. The balance is his cash salary. This way everything is laid on the table and there are no false expectations from either direction.

I have always had very smart pastors and I have never felt any of them needed somebody from the church to look over their shoulders to make sure they had things like life insurance. Things like the old fashioned food poundings are now frowned upon because the pastors feel like, and rightly so, that they can be trusted to buy their own food. Well the same is true of everything else in the life of the pastor. If there needs to be a discussion on the church not paying their pastors enough, well that is a totally different subject than whether the church needs to make sure the pastor has life insurance.

Of course, as always with issues in 'marketania', it's the employee's fault. If he'd been smarter, he wouldn't have been an emplyee - he'd have been an independent religious entrepeneur. Only a fool would work for someone else.

[Marian Schwaller Carney]

And if that budget had been paid, then he had a $15,000 life insurance policy (we're assuming this is a Nazarene pastor/church). If they had not paid the budget, the simple payment of $1 would have resulted in a basic policy--enough to help cover funeral expenses.
.

Good point Jon - this is NOT a Nazarene pastor. This denomination is a charismatic one. This church is not far from our Keene COTN, just a mile or so up the road, and we often shared Good Friday services with them in years past. I don't know how it handles its finances, or what provisions the central HQ makes for the local church and its pastor. This would be considered a small church, and my guess is that tithing and donations are down with the economy in this area. From my remote viewpoint, I expect this pastoral family was living on a shoestring.

[Hans Deventer]

Or another way to say this is: What pastor cannot afford $1? Nothing precludes the pastor giving the $1 to the church and instructing the treasurer to pass it on to P&B. Just another way to look at it.

Perhaps. I'm not an expert on the American system (we don't have P&B here), I understand it is up to the church to do this. But if you're hell bound to blame the pastor, I'm sure you can find a way to do so.

[Bud Pugh]

Or another way to say this is: What pastor cannot afford $1? Nothing precludes the pastor giving the $1 to the church and instructing the treasurer to pass it on to P&B. Just another way to look at it.

Yes, I believe the IRS would preclude the pastor giving money to the church and then instructing anyone to pass it on to P&B- at least if she wants to receive donation credit for it. The decision on whether to send the money to P&B rests with the church board or the individual does not receive a charitable giving receipt for it.

Now, I know no one should quibble about getting a charitable giving receipt for a $1 donation, but the same suggestion could be made for the pastor designating her giving (perhaps to make sure the church makes it to 50% or 100%) and then expecting a donation receipt. The IRS does not allow this except in limited situations.

[Jim Chabot]

Perhaps. I'm not an expert on the American system (we don't have P&B here), I understand it is up to the church to do this. But if you're hell bound to blame the pastor, I'm sure you can find a way to do so.

I really doubt that John is doing this at all. I can agree with his sentiments and I can assure you that my issues over the years are with tightwad churches who burn out their pastors and then throw them away like so much bad rubbish.

I know that this is off subject, but look at the way we have treated pastors over the years and still do. Churches which provide parsonages in lieu of proper compensation are quite similar to the southern slaveowner of years past. Older pastors who have lived under this system have nothing at the end of their working years, the "free" parsonage wasn't free after all.

And what of Jon's observation whereby a pastor's family would need to vacate the parsonage within 30 days should the pastor pass on. Wow! That sends a shiver down my spine just to think of it, and I've seen similar things happen. Churches seem to be incredibly heartless and vicious it seems when the rubber meets the road.

But John is correct, pastors are best considered to be independent religious contractors. When Jesus sent out the disciples to preach, he sent them at the mercy of the hearers of the gospel. The contractual obligatory arrangement between laity and clergy was broken. Those called to preach the gospel never draw a salary for work performed, they receive gifts gladly given for the blessing they bring. John's philosophy is a good one, churches should agree on what they are willing to pay their pastor, then they need to give it to him and trust him to manage it properly. I fully realize that many pastors like the current system for tax reasons, no problem there, I just think that you would be better off with a straight salary making your own financial decisions.

Just my .02 and I'm not trying to beat anyone up, I seriously doubt that John is either.

[Hans Deventer]

I really doubt that John is doing this at all.

To me, it is a matter of taking responsibility. A church can't just throw an amount over the fence and let the pastor sort it out. Even an employer has a responsibility, let alone fellow Christians who call a pastor. We are indeed our brother's keeper. And the pastors who are great at finances are rare, their call is usually not in finances, so this especially is an area where a church board should help its pastor.

In the Netherlands as well, a pastor is officially self employed. But (s)he is not running a business as a normal self employed person would. And if anything, a Christian should do more than approach issues from a legal point of view only.

Bottom line, I do not believe in a one size fits all approach, and I do believe a board has a responsibility to see to it that their pastor either has got his insurances etc together, or help where needed.

[Jim Chabot]

To me, it is a matter of taking responsibility.

No problem, but I must note that this is different than "being hell bound to blame the pastor."

A church can't just throw an amount over the fence and let the pastor sort it out. Even an employer has a responsibility, let alone fellow Christians who call a pastor. We are indeed our brother's keeper. And the pastors who are great at finances are rare, their call is usually not in finances, so this especially is an area where a church board should help its pastor.

In the Netherlands as well, a pastor is officially self employed. But (s)he is not running a business as a normal self employed person would. And if anything, a Christian should do more than approach issues from a legal point of view only.

Bottom line, I do not believe in a one size fits all approach, and I do believe a board has a responsibility to see to it that their pastor either has got his insurances etc together, or help where needed.

What we have here is a philosophical difference in how we see envision what is best. I don't think that we disagree that we both seek the best for our pastors.

We have a discussion going on in this country regarding employer provided benefits in lieu of compensation. Some still feel that this is the best way to go, some still take comfort that the employer provides certain things for them, again in lieu of compensation. While others, myself included, feel that this has been detrimental to individuals in particular and to society as a whole.

Employer provided health insurance has produced a climate where competition has been lacking. We have little choice when it comes to either plan coverage or price as in most cases the employee is not the customer. Thus we have created a climate where the employers, insurers and government officials control the market and while we may not agree on cause, I think we all agree that things aren't good.

I'm of the persuasion that says that competition is superior to regulation. I want to see things improve and I'm genuinly concerned that we are going in the wrong direction. I do understand that you folks see things differently in your country and I have no beef with your right to self determination as a society. Kees informed me that your most right leaning politician would still be to the left of our most ardent liberal, so I'm guessing that our ideologies are oceans apart.

So while you see employer provided benefits as a responsibility, I'm seeing it as paternalism and as an intrusion. While I'm sure that you mean well when you say that a board should take an interest in the pastors insurances, I'm thinking that this is an invasion of privacy, and I'm thinking that the pastor should have freedom in how he spends his money. The board should not control the pastors finances.

My take is that when we take paternalism to it's logical end we have slavery. Granted it is voluntary, yet slavery it is, you work, we provide. I'm inclined to see clergy in light of Jesus direction to the twelve. Should the congregation fail to pay, then move on. Should the congregation grow by leaps and bounds and give generously, then I rejoice with the pastor who reaps a million dollars or more a year! But back to slavery, because I cry when I hear of pastors who have spent their entire life and at the end have nothing to show for it and live in poverty partly because they have no equity in a home. My thought is that churches are going to take a paternalistic approach, and many do, then they also have a responsibility to their pastor and his family for life.

This is a double edged sword. I'm not approaching this from a legal point of view. Your observation would be better directed at those who seek to minimize their tax exposure through collaboration with their church. I'm not criticizing them, just noting that the IRS has had it's hand in how we do things here.

[Hans Deventer]

No problem, but I must note that this is different than "being hell bound to blame the pastor."

Look at post #15.

What we have here is a philosophical difference in how we see envision what is best. I don't think that we disagree that we both seek the best for our pastors.

[...]

So while you see employer provided benefits as a responsibility, I'm seeing it as paternalism and as an intrusion. While I'm sure that you mean well when you say that a board should take an interest in the pastors insurances, I'm thinking that this is an invasion of privacy, and I'm thinking that the pastor should have freedom in how he spends his money. The board should not control the pastors finances.

Of course not. HELP, not CONTROL.

[Jim Chabot]

Look at post #15.

Yes, I think that we might be reacting differently there. I would have had the same thought if indeed we were talking about one dollar.

I would refer you back to post #16 where John is pretty clear that he is on the side of pastors, not against. He is arguing for honest compensation.

Bear in mind that the realization of self employment is still very much in the picture here.

Of course not. HELP, not CONTROL.

Absolutely, again we are coming from far away and different points of view. If I were a pastor I would view this as control, then again I am self employed same as they are.

Just for illustration and from my viewpoint alone. Should I be in this position and find that the board would like to discuss how I manage my household finances, I would feel awkward and uncomfortable. Realizing that they are good intentioned and looking out for me is good, yet still my privacy is invaded. Now lets also consider that this is often a collaborative effort where the pastor is looking to shift as much income as possible out of taxable status. So the question isn't easily answered.

How about we look at help a little differently. Lets say that the pastor is being compensated and that the board isn't going to interfere. The key between help and control does, I think, hinge upon the question of interference or obligation. So let's say that instead there are folks in the church who are good with finances and they let the pastor know that they are willing to help and advise at any time, it's the pastor's call. From my perspective this is help. Not trying to argue here, and I agree that it saddens me to see pastor's who struggle with financial difficulties. We have a few here on naznet whom I pray for regularly.

[Hans Deventer]

Jim, I don't know in what world you are living, but over here, the pastors are very grateful for the help they can get. They are generally no experts on finances, insurance, pensions etc. We have a good pension board right now, and they are doing a great job that is very much appreciated.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, I don't know in what world you are living, but over here, the pastors are very grateful for the help they can get. They are generally no experts on finances, insurance, pensions etc. We have a good pension board right now, and they are doing a great job that is very much appreciated.

A completely different world for sure, and yes I do realize this. That was the reason that I recounted my conversation with Kees. We do live in completely different worlds and we must give this consideration.

I do have to ask this, especially since I think it reflects the concern in this thread. How do you folks handle situations where minsters have died. How do you care for their families? I can tell you that I've seen little in our methods to take any pride in. I would estimate that the way our churches treat folks who are no longer useful is terrible. I sure would be encouraged to hear of a better way in that regard.

[Hans Deventer]

Well, I have an example that comes close. The former DS of Portugal came here some 10 years ago to pastor the Cape Verdian church we have. After a few years, this did not work out. He could not find a church anymore and he and his wife became cleaners. Then he found out he had cancer. They have been trying to sell their house for 4 years, without success as yet, in order to return to Portugal and for him, to die there. Our recent District Assembly had a resolution presented to it to buy the house. In the end, the matter has been referred to the DAB, who have been authorized to do whatever needed to help these dear people. Wednesday, our DS and one of the DAB members will visit them to hear how we can best help them. They have already expressed gratitude, they did not say they did not want us to interfere with their private business.

Jim, I would like to stop this discussion. It's not beneficial to my health in the current situation.

[Jim Chabot]

Well, I have an example that comes close. The former DS of Portugal came here some 10 years ago to pastor the Cape Verdian church we have. After a few years, this did not work out. He could not find a church anymore and he and his wife became cleaners. Then he found out he had cancer. They have been trying to sell their house for 4 years, without success as yet, in order to return to Portugal and for him, to die there. Our recent District Assembly had a resolution presented to it to buy the house. In the end, the matter has been referred to the DAB, who have been authorized to do whatever needed to help these dear people. Wednesday, our DS and one of the DAB members will visit them to hear how we can best help them. They have already expressed gratitude, they did not say they did not want us to interfere with their private business.

Jim, I would like to stop this discussion. It's not beneficial to my health in the current situation.

Hans; thank you for this story, we hear very few stories of this kind here.

And yes absolutely, I have no wish to converse with you in a way that is detrimental to you.

Peace.

[Jon Twitchell]

I think that the phrase "self-employed" is not always helpful when dealing with clergy.

Yes... there are some elements of the calling to clergy that fit the self-employed model--I mostly set my hours... I mostly direct my energies... and I am a key component of the success or failure of my "business."

But I'm not really self-employed... I'm employed by the local church that I serve. They call me... they review my performance... they have the ability to work through a process to terminate me. The local church board establishes expectations, and has a very large role in determining my hours and responsibilities.

In many ways, clergy are categorized as "self employed" as much to reduce the paperwork burden on the local church. It saves churches from doing payroll withholding (if they wish), and I suspect was a concession to those churches who resisted the idea of paying money to the government.

But those payroll taxes still have to be paid... and they are shifted onto the clergy. While the "self employed" status allows for some benefits to clergy... the rent-free parsonage results in pretty significant SECA taxes.

Regardless... my church didn't call me to be a self-employed contractor... they called me as an employee. For purposes of "Workers' Compensation Insurance," the law considers me to be an employee. My church has a policy manual which states what the benefit package is... including health insurance and a contribution to my 403(b), in addition to that, they offer me a salary package--which I have the option of allocating in several ways--which would be identified as a salary reduction.

It really functions much more like the standard employee/employer relationship... with salary additions (benefits paid by the employer) and salary reductions (determined by the employee). As far as I can tell, this is the recommended model from HQ.

[Bud Pugh]

Bear in mind that the realization of self employment is still very much in the picture here.

I think it is important to clarify that pastors are considered self-employed for Social Security taxing purposes only. For income tax purposes they are treated the same as any other employee; they receive a W-2 in January and otherwise are considered an employee. A pastor may receive compensation outside of his/her church income (being paid for a wedding or a funeral come in here) and this income is typically accounted for on Schedule C.

[Ryan Scott]

I'll just chime in, as a pastor, that one some basic level it is the pastor's fault if they're not adequately paid. They do decide to accept a call at an agreed compensation. Sure, there are tons of congregations who nickle and dime their pastor and pay them well below what is right - but the pastor still chooses to remain there. I think there's no one party to "blame" persay.

Now I do think it is a different scenario when a pastor decides that what is necessary for them is less than what the congregation thinks is necessary. This is a fantastic scenario to be in. I think this is the direction John was indicating with his initial post. As a younger pastor with a spouse who has a career, life insurance has never been a huge priority for me. I can imagine other pastors would get to a point in tough financial times that it becomes a luxury for them as well. In those instances, I would more than welcome a congregation stepping in to provide life insurance.

I saw John saying, "this is an important thing for pastors to have and something not every pastor has - maybe your congregation should check into it." It's an important reminder, especially for a board member who may never have thought about it.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I think there should be a government mandated Life Insurance program. After all, everyone is going to die and those without Life Insurance are a drag on society. We could either penalize them or tax them if they don't.

How's that for a good idea?

[Ryan Scott]

I think there should be a government mandated Life Insurance program. After all, everyone is going to die and those without Life Insurance are a drag on society. We could either penalize them or tax them if they don't.

How's that for a good idea?

I'm not sure what the cost is to prepare and dispose of a body, but it would make sense to at least have the basic costs wrapped up in some general health care coverage (even though it makes much more sense for it to be single-payer).

We are already footing the bill for indigents and people without next of kin or assets.

With average life expectancy, a $1,000 over the course of a lifetime is a pretty small bump in premium. (I know funerals cost much more than that, but basic disposal can't be that expensive).

[Gina Stevenson]

I think there should be a government mandated Life Insurance program. After all, everyone is going to die and those without Life Insurance are a drag on society. We could either penalize them or tax them if they don't.

How's that for a good idea?

Somehow has a familiar ring to it.

[John Reilly]

I think Pastors who live in a church owned parsonage ought to have $500,000 to $1,000,000 in life insurance so that their surviving family can purchase a home to live in, potentially send children to college, and be financially stable for at least one year following the death. OR if the Pastor owes their home this same amount of coverage would pay off the mortgage, send children to college and allow some time for healing before the surviving spouse needs to work full time. This policy obviously is a supplement to the minor policy offered for burial expenses from P&B. BY THE WAY, THE cost for this amount of TERM life insurance based on my policy and changing depending on age, is ONLY $340 semiannually!!!!!!!!!!!

[John Dahl]

What this thread illustrates to me is the level of nanny state that we have become in this country. That there are people that actually expect somebody else to provide something as simple as life insurance for them. I still see what I think is the confusing of two issues. Underpaid clergy and the inability to purchase insurance because of the underpayment or just choosing on purpose not to buy it. These are two completely different issues. It is the pastor's responsibility, just any other layman, to negotiate for more salary if they need more. There has to be the ability to have these conversations freely between pastor and board if we are going to have healthy relationships. If the church just cannot do any more then the only options are grow the church, move on, or supplement with a part time job just like any other layman.

If it is the church's job to check up on the pastor to see that he has proper life insurance why then would it not be the church's job to question or oversee what kind of savings program he has. Are he and his family eating out too much instead of saving for retirement? Should we make sure he is driving the proper kind of automobile? Is it too expensive? Should we oversee his diet? Is he eating the right kinds of food? I mean if he can't be trusted to take care of himself with insurance what can he be trusted with. But like I said earlier, maybe I have just been blessed with intelligent pastors.

[Hans Deventer]

What this thread illustrates to me is the level of nanny state that we have become in this country.

And once again it has become political. Can the moderator please move the thread?

[Ryan Scott]

What this thread illustrates to me is the level of nanny state that we have become in this country. That there are people that actually expect somebody else to provide something as simple as life insurance for them. I still see what I think is the confusing of two issues. Underpaid clergy and the inability to purchase insurance because of the underpayment or just choosing on purpose not to buy it. These are two completely different issues. It is the pastor's responsibility, just any other layman, to negotiate for more salary if they need more. There has to be the ability to have these conversations freely between pastor and board if we are going to have healthy relationships. If the church just cannot do any more then the only options are grow the church, move on, or supplement with a part time job just like any other layman.

If it is the church's job to check up on the pastor to see that he has proper life insurance why then would it not be the church's job to question or oversee what kind of savings program he has. Are he and his family eating out too much instead of saving for retirement? Should we make sure he is driving the proper kind of automobile? Is it too expensive? Should we oversee his diet? Is he eating the right kinds of food? I mean if he can't be trusted to take care of himself with insurance what can he be trusted with. But like I said earlier, maybe I have just been blessed with intelligent pastors.

As Christians we're responsible for each other. I can see it from both sides. A life insurance policy is a relatively small expense. It should be up to a pastor to decide if they want it or not. However, I also think its entirely appropriate for a board to say, "we recognize you're choosing to spend your income differently, but as our leader and as someone we love, we think this small expense for life insurance is worth it for you and your family and we're going to pay for it as a benefit on top of what we already pay you."

To me, that's a sign of a loving community.

And yes, if the board, as a group, think there is an issue in the pastor's life - stewardship of finances, health, etc - it should be brought up and discussed. All of these are integral to the role of a pastor.

[Mike Schutz]

It is the pastor's responsibility, just any other layman, to negotiate for more salary if they need more. There has to be the ability to have these conversations freely between pastor and board if we are going to have healthy relationships. If the church just cannot do any more then the only options are grow the church...

Thanks, John. I haven't laughed so hard all day.
As someone who served on church boards for 25 years before becoming a pastor myself, I'm not sure which of your comments is more humorous - that most church boards would receive it well if a pastor came to them and said "I need a raise," or that you believe that the motivating factor for "growing the church" (which, by the way, is not the work of the pastor or the church, but the Lord) is to raise income to pay the pastor - which is, of course, the belief of the most cynical anti-church folks among us.