Last week, I wrote on the extreme high salaries in Christian ministries and colleges. The question was “how much is too much?” Maybe the more accurate question for the majority of those in ministry is: “how little is too little?”
The majority of churches in this country are under 100 people. The average church seats 200 people, the average attendance is 60 people and dropping. There are plenty of discouraging numbers regarding the de-churching of America. You can read about it here. With each former tither walking out the door, the question looms: How can a minister survive with declining attendance and declining offering totals? The hard reality is: she/he cannot.
It used to be at an interview for a prospective minister: “Does your spouse play the piano?” Now the question is: “Does your spouse have a job that can support your family and provide health insurance too?”
There aren’t many good answers to the dilemma of a church unable to pay a livable wage. Here are the choices:
- Second Career Pastors.
- Muti-point charge. (pastoring multiple churches)
- Bi-vocational pastor
- Pastor with spousal financial support
- Close the church doors.
(Let me also add, if a church cannot afford a livable wage for a pastoral staff member, DO NOT call one to the church. It is the duty of the church to provide a livable wage to the full time pastoral team).
There are problems with all of the above options. The possible problem with a second career pastor is: does this group have adequate theological/pastoral training? Pastoring multiple churches is getting past the mindset that a single pastor is always at a particular church’s beck-and-call. The problem with bi-vocational pastorate is the minister has only 24 hours in a day to juggle family/church/job. Most generally something suffers in such an arrangement. Not all ministers have spouses and not all of the pastoral spouses have the ability or desire to provide the financial support for their family. It’s obvious, closing the doors is not favorable outcome.
Each church/pastor will need to decide what is the best option for their circumstance. These criteria should be considered:
- A full time pastor deserves a full time salary and benefits in line with what school teachers or social workers in the area are compensated.
- If the financial situation of the church cannot afford a full time pastor, then the church body must understand their reality that a full time pastor is not an option. Either their pastor will be bi-vocational; or two (or three) churches must join together for a muti-point charge and the pastor will be like the old Methodist circuit riders (only with better transportation and technology). The church must be flexible in other words — in meeting times and in their expectation of their heart divided pastor in a multi-charge or bi-vocational situation .
- It’s a choice between closing the doors or having a pastor that is not always available.
- It is difficult (not impossible) to grow when the pastor is divided either between multiple churches and/or secular employment. Don’t expect your pastor to be the next Billy Graham or Apostle Paul.
How much is too little? In my first assignment, we were paid below the poverty line. We were young and didn’t really realize how poor we were. We were eligible for food stamps and free baby items through social services. We chose to accept neither and trusted that the Lord would take care of us. He did, but ours may have been the exception. It was a different time, back then. I’m not sure we could survive now in such an environment.
If too little is given to compensate a pastor, an unintended outcome of bitterness developing within the pastor or more likely the pastor’s family is real. The cost of pastor’s desire to reach the world in the midst difficult financial circumstances may be his/her family. If this unhealthy attitude develops, then the question of “How little is too little?” is a game changer. Moreover, if too little is given, the pastor will also more than likely have too little on which to retire (although I am very thankful for the Nazarene Pensions and Benevolence matching contribution change in 2024. You can read my article here). Again, the inability for adequate retirement planning is not a good desired outcome for the pastor.
Churches need to assess their current reality and not continue to expect a pastor to survive on too little. The cost of such expectation toward the pastor and his family is too high.
My Two Cent Offering 
I have heard the suggestion that districts should establish a minimum compensation level. If a church is unable or unwilling to pay the minimum level, it should not be able to call a pastor. The problem with that suggestion is that many who feel called to pastor won’t have a place to serve. The basic issue is one of supply and demand. In a capitalist society, compensation is set and the level where supply and demand are in balance. Employers set compensation at the lowest level that permits them to find a qualified employee. In the Church of the Nazarene, there are more people who believe they are called to be a pastor than there are churches. Many of those individuals express an attitude that they are willing to serve without pay to fulfill their call. Since their are pastors who are willing to serve at minimal compensation, church boards are left with very little guidance of how to set the compensation level. It has been my observation that most churches tend to pay their pastor at a level near the average compensation of the board members. When the church board is made up of mostly retired people, that creates a problem for the pastor. My suggested solution is for district superintendents to be proactive in encouraging churches to pay well. On districts where superintendents have chosen to get be advocates for the pastors, the compensation levels are higher.