Our lot (UC, RCC) are provided with houses as they are expected to move as and when to where the bishop wants them to be. This will often also contain the parish Office. When they retire the diocese provides them with a house rent free. Ours aren't salaried, they get an allowance to cover personal and professional needs.
The average home in Washington State is around $450,000. The average equity increase in home value is around 8% over the past five years which is in the neighborhood of $36,000. Of course, houses in Seattle are much higher than houses in Pullman, where I live, and the equity increase in Seattle is much more than 8%
Leaf's statement reflects the minimum equity allowance required by his synod.
A couple of incorrect assumptions there, Gramps I am not in the Eastern Synod.
Off hand, I do not know the minimum required by my synod. But my point was the requirement of providing an equity allowance for a clergy living in a parsonages does get prohibitive fairly quickly.
The average home price in Toronto, which is in the Eastern Synod, is $1.1 million dollars CAD ($794,00,00 USD). Based on that, the home equity allowance of $1985 CAD per annum is pretty far from "prohibitive" in terms of congregational expenses.
The North Washington Synod website does not indicate a minimum home equity allowance, and I'm not inclined to contact Portico to find out, let alone trawl through the synodical or national convention documents to see if a related motion was passed.
Of the ELCA churches in our area, there are 8. There are only three congregations remaining that provide a parsonage. Two of them are in very rural areas. I would think the synod is telling them they have to provide a minimum housing allowance such as Leaf is saying.
Thanks for that information and those examples, @Leaf. What you describe as being required for the Eastern Synod of the ELCiC sounds similar to the requirement I mentioned above for the Presbytery of West Virginia, though as I noted, the minimum annual contribution is only $500. Better than nothing, but not huge.
To be clear, I am not diminishing the historical problem of ministers retiring with very limited resources for housing. And that is one reason so many congregations, at least in the PC(USA), have moved to providing housing allowances rather than manses. I can’t speak for what has happened in other denominations. I’m simply skeptical that what @Gramps49 describes can be fairly characterized as “usually recommended” among Protestant denominations generally in the US.
... and their pay is intended to free them from needing to work, not pay them for their hours.
This puts me in mind of voluntary work, as does Alan29's post, and the effect on someone's attitude to working hours when they are paid and are working alongside people who are unpaid volunteers (such as churchwardens and other parish workers). In this situation, I suggest that whether clergy are employed or stipendiary still makes a difference to their attitude to working hours, as do the attitudes to working hours of the people they are working with.
The clergy that I've known have with one exception taken the attitude that they're salaried employees with tenure, and that's how it felt to me both as a volunteer and as a lay church employee. If they're the rector or senior minister, they make their own hours and are their own boss. It always astonished me that someone would be given tenure on day one. Because clergy are "called" it's a nightmare to get rid of them if they're not good at their job or a bad fit for the congregation or parish; you either go through some complicated and conflict-laden process (when there is a structure that provides for that) or you make them so miserable they leave of their own accord.
One Episcopal priest did say her pay was a stipend rather than a salary, and it just came off to me as "being a priest makes me and my work super special"; as I was senior warden and CEO of the corporation, putting in a lot of unpaid hours in the interim period between rectors, I did not appreciate that attitude, though I held my tongue and did not point out that she basically worked for me.
Also, my experience both as a volunteer and as lay church worker was that clergy do not work "alongside" anyone. They're leading, and they're in charge. It's one of the reasons I stopped attending church.
it depends on the priest/pastor. Our struggle has always been to keep the church and community from thinking of the pastor as somehow their unpaid slave, to be used and abused as they choose. To be fair, this is a natural result of discovering for the first time that there’s someone who isn’t out to exploit you—so the second move in the relationship is generally exploring “Does that mean I get to exploit them?”
It’s only after they hear and accept a firm No on that one that we can actually get on with work together.
The average home in Washington State is around $450,000. The average equity increase in home value is around 8% over the past five years which is in the neighborhood of $36,000. Of course, houses in Seattle are much higher than houses in Pullman, where I live, and the equity increase in Seattle is much more than 8%
Leaf's statement reflects the minimum equity allowance required by his synod.
A couple of incorrect assumptions there, Gramps I am not in the Eastern Synod.
Off hand, I do not know the minimum required by my synod. But my point was the requirement of providing an equity allowance for a clergy living in a parsonages does get prohibitive fairly quickly.
The average home price in Toronto, which is in the Eastern Synod, is $1.1 million dollars CAD ($794,00,00 USD). Based on that, the home equity allowance of $1985 CAD per annum is pretty far from "prohibitive" in terms of congregational expenses.
The North Washington Synod website does not indicate a minimum home equity allowance, and I'm not inclined to contact Portico to find out, let alone trawl through the synodical or national convention documents to see if a related motion was passed.
Of the ELCA churches in our area, there are 8. There are only three congregations remaining that provide a parsonage. Two of them are in very rural areas. I would think the synod is telling them they have to provide a minimum housing allowance such as Leaf is saying.
... and their pay is intended to free them from needing to work, not pay them for their hours.
This puts me in mind of voluntary work, as does Alan29's post, and the effect on someone's attitude to working hours when they are paid and are working alongside people who are unpaid volunteers (such as churchwardens and other parish workers). In this situation, I suggest that whether clergy are employed or stipendiary still makes a difference to their attitude to working hours, as do the attitudes to working hours of the people they are working with.
The clergy that I've known have with one exception taken the attitude that they're salaried employees with tenure, and that's how it felt to me both as a volunteer and as a lay church employee. If they're the rector or senior minister, they make their own hours and are their own boss. It always astonished me that someone would be given tenure on day one. Because clergy are "called" it's a nightmare to get rid of them if they're not good at their job or a bad fit for the congregation or parish; you either go through some complicated and conflict-laden process (when there is a structure that provides for that) or you make them so miserable they leave of their own accord.
One Episcopal priest did say her pay was a stipend rather than a salary, and it just came off to me as "being a priest makes me and my work super special"; as I was senior warden and CEO of the corporation, putting in a lot of unpaid hours in the interim period between rectors, I did not appreciate that attitude, though I held my tongue and did not point out that she basically worked for me.
Also, my experience both as a volunteer and as lay church worker was that clergy do not work "alongside" anyone. They're leading, and they're in charge. It's one of the reasons I stopped attending church.
I can see it both ways myself. Basically, I come down along the idea of being a contract worker. I provide Word and Sacrament, teach various classes, provide pastoral support and special services plus parish administration for an agreed remuneration by the congregation. Since I am not an official employee under a boss (I might be if I were in a team ministry), I set my own hours, and as long as the needs of the congregation is being met, everyone should be happy.
The congregation does have the right to terminate my contract if I were found to be:
1) Grossly heretical.
2) Grossly incompetent, or
3) Grossly immoral.
The synod bishop can also terminate me for the same reasons.
Thank God, I never crossed any of those lines.
Yes, being the senior warden of the parish, or the president of the congregational council/ or session will necessitate extra work especially during a vacancy. We should not forget that.
If I may, I suggest you have a one on one with your priest and let her know how that came across to you. This is under the rubric of
"If you bring your offering to the Lord, and suddenly remember you have a grievance against your brother or sister, go make your peace with them and then bring your offering together" This is a paraphrase of Matt 25:23f.
it depends on the priest/pastor. Our struggle has always been to keep the church and community from thinking of the pastor as somehow their unpaid slave, to be used and abused as they choose. To be fair, this is a natural result of discovering for the first time that there’s someone who isn’t out to exploit you—so the second move in the relationship is generally exploring “Does that mean I get to exploit them?”
It’s only after they hear and accept a firm No on that one that we can actually get on with work together.
This can be a problem in UK Baptist churches, especially as they're hiring, firing and paying you themselves.
It always astonished me that someone would be given tenure on day one. Because clergy are "called" it's a nightmare to get rid of them if they're not good at their job or a bad fit for the congregation or parish; you either go through some complicated and conflict-laden process (when there is a structure that provides for that) or you make them so miserable they leave of their own accord.
The way this works in practice: a newly-ordained person receives a 2 year term call. If they are a crashing disaster, at the end of the term, their call is not renewed by the congregation and they bugger off. Generally it's pretty hard for them to be called to a new congregation when it's known that their term call was not renewed; not impossible, but the new congregation has to think hard about what that means.
After the 2 year term ends, the renewed call is usually a tenured call. It's possible for a congregation to only extend consecutive term calls, I guess, but I've never heard of it.
It may readily apparent, but it seems worth mentioning that things like whether a congregation can terminate the employment/call of clergy, how much authority clergy have to run things, whether the clergy are answerable to anyone in the congregation and/or outside the congregation in terms of how they spend their time, etc., are going to turn on the specifics of denominational polity, policies, rules and culture. These may be very different from denomination to denomination.
it depends on the priest/pastor. Our struggle has always been to keep the church and community from thinking of the pastor as somehow their unpaid slave, to be used and abused as they choose. To be fair, this is a natural result of discovering for the first time that there’s someone who isn’t out to exploit you—so the second move in the relationship is generally exploring “Does that mean I get to exploit them?”
It’s only after they hear and accept a firm No on that one that we can actually get on with work together.
This can be a problem in UK Baptist churches, especially as they're hiring, firing and paying you themselves.
I do believe you!
It’s why in my own church body, in theory at least, a properly called pastor cannot be fired or laid off. Note that “in theory.” My district managed it somehow for an entire class of pastors they’d been itching to unload sure to financial pressures. I’m pretty sure it could have been successfully contested, either thru church channels or in the courts—but then, who of us is going to take our own church body to court publicly for such a cause? Right, it’s the thing St. Paul was talking about. I could see it for a very few rare reasons, but not this one. So we basically threw our financial future on Jesus—and here we still stand, nearly 20 years later. Didn’t even lose the house. Which is a freaking miracle to me, and has to be itching the ecclesiastical powers that be something dreadful, and I’m not charitable enough to wish it otherwise.
If I may, I suggest you have a one on one with your priest and let her know how that came across to you.
You may not. You are not in possession of most of the relevant facts, you didn't notice that I wrote in the past tense, and I am not open to unsolicited advice.
It always astonished me that someone would be given tenure on day one. Because clergy are "called" it's a nightmare to get rid of them if they're not good at their job or a bad fit for the congregation or parish; you either go through some complicated and conflict-laden process (when there is a structure that provides for that) or you make them so miserable they leave of their own accord.
The way this works in practice: a newly-ordained person receives a 2 year term call. If they are a crashing disaster, at the end of the term, their call is not renewed by the congregation and they bugger off. Generally it's pretty hard for them to be called to a new congregation when it's known that their term call was not renewed; not impossible, but the new congregation has to think hard about what that means.
After the 2 year term ends, the renewed call is usually a tenured call. It's possible for a congregation to only extend consecutive term calls, I guess, but I've never heard of it.
Is two years enough? Many local public school teachers where I live have a two-year probationary period before going up for tenure; this is functionally really one and a half years due to the slowness of the evaluation process, and it isn't enough. I'd wonder if churches do much better, but of course it's not necessarily a good comparison -- I don't know. Public university professors in California have a five-year period before they go up for tenure, which seems like plenty of time to figure out if you want to give them a job they hold for as long as they please.
But this makes far more sense to me than the way Episcopal parishes and United Church of Christ congregations do it, installing people they barely know into tenured positions.
@Lamb Chopped If you would check your congregation's constitution, I think you will find reasons for termination listed. Checking with the model constitution for congregations of the LCMS, I find this provision:
Called ordained or commissioned ministers may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of the voters assembly for one of the following reasons: persistent adherence to false doctrine, scandalous life, willful neglect of duties, the inability to perform those duties, or domineering in office.”
The domineering in office is a new one for me, but I think they are trying to prevent a repeat of pastors and commissioned ministers abusing the office they hold.
Ugh. I thought that was obvious--Can't think of any church body that won't allow you to get rid of a pastor who's preaching open heresy, shagging the organist or running off with the offering money. I mean, duh. I was referring to the more ordinary sorts of firing--the kind that says, "Eh, you're a decent human being, but I don't like your personality," or "Your sermons put me to sleep," or even "I want to get my cousin installed here." We can't (allegedly) do that.
Tomorrow is our priest’s last Sunday before she takes early retirement. She wants to have more time for her family, particularly her grandchildren and her elderly mother, and given the pressures of having five churches, each with its expectations and two church schools, I applaud her decision, though it is a huge loss for us.
But being a conscientious priest, her expectations of herself are perhaps the hardest to meet. There are not enough hours in the working week, however that is measured, to prepare and lead all services and meetings as well as the pastoral work involved with considerable numbers of weddings and funerals, especially since the sudden death of our one Lay Reader.
Tomorrow is our priest’s last Sunday before she takes early retirement. She wants to have more time for her family, particularly her grandchildren and her elderly mother, and given the pressures of having five churches, each with its expectations and two church schools, I applaud her decision, though it is a huge loss for us.
But being a conscientious priest, her expectations of herself are perhaps the hardest to meet. There are not enough hours in the working week, however that is measured, to prepare and lead all services and meetings as well as the pastoral work involved with considerable numbers of weddings and funerals, especially since the sudden death of our one Lay Reader.
Our pastor is also retiring tomorrow. He has been in ministry for over 30 years, fifteen of which have been here. Originally, he had hoped to be away from the congregation for a couple of years and then ease back in as an ordinary worshipper. We have had a number of retired ministers, including me, who do worship with us. Deal of it is, none of the rest of us ever pastored here. But the bishop has put the brakes on that idea. She made him sign a social contract that says he has to go to another congregation. There are eight other Lutheran congregations nearby, but there are also other denominations which would be a good fit for him too. It will be a bittersweet day tomorrow. Many people do like him; but after hearing many of his same sermon illustrations for years, plus not keeping up with the times--doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, we need new blood.
Ugh. I thought that was obvious--Can't think of any church body that won't allow you to get rid of a pastor who's preaching open heresy, shagging the organist or running off with the offering money. I mean, duh. I was referring to the more ordinary sorts of firing--the kind that says, "Eh, you're a decent human being, but I don't like your personality," or "Your sermons put me to sleep," or even "I want to get my cousin installed here." We can't (allegedly) do that.
What about when the pastor is just a bad fit for the congregation and either refuses to acknowledge it or for other reasons won't leave? Or if they're simply not a good pastor?
(Perhaps a momentary amusing anecdote to lighten things? My wife's sisters (both lapsed RC) have been visiting, and I mentioned my feeling that being the next pope would be just about the worst job in the world. G_ suggested she'd rather do that than break up fat bergs in sewers, but then she's a bit squeamish about stuff like that - she wears marigolds to wash up, for goodness sake. I'd take fat bergs all day long. Hell, I'd do nights if it meant not being the pope.)
To answer Ruth's question - in Methodism you wait 5 years. If it goes wrong again, you wait another 5 years. And if necessary, another 5 after that. That's been my experience - last 7 have been good.
It may readily apparent, but it seems worth mentioning that things like whether a congregation can terminate the employment/call of clergy, how much authority clergy have to run things, whether the clergy are answerable to anyone in the congregation and/or outside the congregation in terms of how they spend their time, etc., are going to turn on the specifics of denominational polity, policies, rules and culture. These may be very different from denomination to denomination.
Beliefs about what a church leader "is" vary, and would underlie some of the variations in practice. In denominations with holy orders, it wouldn't be surprising to find an expectation that someone who is ordained - set apart by/for God - "ought" to be treated differently to the rest of us.
Many local public school teachers where I live have a two-year probationary period before going up for tenure; this is functionally really one and a half years due to the slowness of the evaluation process, and it isn't enough. I'd wonder if churches do much better, but of course it's not necessarily a good comparison -- I don't know. Public university professors in California have a five-year period before they go up for tenure, which seems like plenty of time to figure out if you want to give them a job they hold for as long as they please.
Academic tenure (which originated in the US) isn't a concept that people in the UK come across very much - and the CofE's Common Tenure (clergy terms of service) doesn't have those connotations (if congregations are aware of the "tenure" aspect of it at all).
...So what does a congregation do if the pastor is terrible?
In the CofE, they wait for them to leave. Then breath a sigh of relief. Then wonder how long the interregnum will last and whether the next vicar will be any better. Issues in the CofE are traditionally resolved by waiting (for people to leave or die), which tends to select for patience in congregations. But the need for transparency and accountability, to be proactive about safeguarding, doesn't lend itself to this approach.
Comments
A couple of incorrect assumptions there, Gramps
The average home price in Toronto, which is in the Eastern Synod, is $1.1 million dollars CAD ($794,00,00 USD). Based on that, the home equity allowance of $1985 CAD per annum is pretty far from "prohibitive" in terms of congregational expenses.
The North Washington Synod website does not indicate a minimum home equity allowance, and I'm not inclined to contact Portico to find out, let alone trawl through the synodical or national convention documents to see if a related motion was passed.
You would be wrong. I am perfectly aware of the difference between housing allowance and home equity allowance, and so is the synod in the document I linked. If you like, I can link the North Washington Synod doc too. They also seem aware of the difference. https://dq5pwpg1q8ru0.cloudfront.net/2024/09/30/16/56/31/dae445ec-e816-4f46-a6ad-37bd51f68522/2025%20Compensation%20Guidelines.pdf 15 page PDF
Wtf is that figure. $794,000.00 USD would be correct.
To be clear, I am not diminishing the historical problem of ministers retiring with very limited resources for housing. And that is one reason so many congregations, at least in the PC(USA), have moved to providing housing allowances rather than manses. I can’t speak for what has happened in other denominations. I’m simply skeptical that what @Gramps49 describes can be fairly characterized as “usually recommended” among Protestant denominations generally in the US.
The clergy that I've known have with one exception taken the attitude that they're salaried employees with tenure, and that's how it felt to me both as a volunteer and as a lay church employee. If they're the rector or senior minister, they make their own hours and are their own boss. It always astonished me that someone would be given tenure on day one. Because clergy are "called" it's a nightmare to get rid of them if they're not good at their job or a bad fit for the congregation or parish; you either go through some complicated and conflict-laden process (when there is a structure that provides for that) or you make them so miserable they leave of their own accord.
One Episcopal priest did say her pay was a stipend rather than a salary, and it just came off to me as "being a priest makes me and my work super special"; as I was senior warden and CEO of the corporation, putting in a lot of unpaid hours in the interim period between rectors, I did not appreciate that attitude, though I held my tongue and did not point out that she basically worked for me.
Also, my experience both as a volunteer and as lay church worker was that clergy do not work "alongside" anyone. They're leading, and they're in charge. It's one of the reasons I stopped attending church.
It’s only after they hear and accept a firm No on that one that we can actually get on with work together.
Did I mention which synod I thought you were from? My error.
I am not a member of the Northern Washington Synod. though.
I Googled Pullman, Washington ELCA and found Northwest Washington Synod. My error on not having the name precisely correct.
I can see it both ways myself. Basically, I come down along the idea of being a contract worker. I provide Word and Sacrament, teach various classes, provide pastoral support and special services plus parish administration for an agreed remuneration by the congregation. Since I am not an official employee under a boss (I might be if I were in a team ministry), I set my own hours, and as long as the needs of the congregation is being met, everyone should be happy.
The congregation does have the right to terminate my contract if I were found to be:
1) Grossly heretical.
2) Grossly incompetent, or
3) Grossly immoral.
The synod bishop can also terminate me for the same reasons.
Thank God, I never crossed any of those lines.
Yes, being the senior warden of the parish, or the president of the congregational council/ or session will necessitate extra work especially during a vacancy. We should not forget that.
If I may, I suggest you have a one on one with your priest and let her know how that came across to you. This is under the rubric of
"If you bring your offering to the Lord, and suddenly remember you have a grievance against your brother or sister, go make your peace with them and then bring your offering together" This is a paraphrase of Matt 25:23f.
This can be a problem in UK Baptist churches, especially as they're hiring, firing and paying you themselves.
In order to remediate this, first calls in the ELCiC are normally term calls of 2 years. The standard employment agreement notes "Term" on page 4 of the 6 page PDF https://elcic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/EmploymentAgreement-RosteredPastorexcNSQue2020.pdf
The way this works in practice: a newly-ordained person receives a 2 year term call. If they are a crashing disaster, at the end of the term, their call is not renewed by the congregation and they bugger off. Generally it's pretty hard for them to be called to a new congregation when it's known that their term call was not renewed; not impossible, but the new congregation has to think hard about what that means.
After the 2 year term ends, the renewed call is usually a tenured call. It's possible for a congregation to only extend consecutive term calls, I guess, but I've never heard of it.
I do believe you!
It’s why in my own church body, in theory at least, a properly called pastor cannot be fired or laid off. Note that “in theory.” My district managed it somehow for an entire class of pastors they’d been itching to unload sure to financial pressures. I’m pretty sure it could have been successfully contested, either thru church channels or in the courts—but then, who of us is going to take our own church body to court publicly for such a cause? Right, it’s the thing St. Paul was talking about. I could see it for a very few rare reasons, but not this one. So we basically threw our financial future on Jesus—and here we still stand, nearly 20 years later. Didn’t even lose the house. Which is a freaking miracle to me, and has to be itching the ecclesiastical powers that be something dreadful, and I’m not charitable enough to wish it otherwise.
Is two years enough? Many local public school teachers where I live have a two-year probationary period before going up for tenure; this is functionally really one and a half years due to the slowness of the evaluation process, and it isn't enough. I'd wonder if churches do much better, but of course it's not necessarily a good comparison -- I don't know. Public university professors in California have a five-year period before they go up for tenure, which seems like plenty of time to figure out if you want to give them a job they hold for as long as they please.
But this makes far more sense to me than the way Episcopal parishes and United Church of Christ congregations do it, installing people they barely know into tenured positions.
So what does a congregation do if the pastor is terrible?
@Lamb Chopped If you would check your congregation's constitution, I think you will find reasons for termination listed. Checking with the model constitution for congregations of the LCMS, I find this provision:
The domineering in office is a new one for me, but I think they are trying to prevent a repeat of pastors and commissioned ministers abusing the office they hold.
But being a conscientious priest, her expectations of herself are perhaps the hardest to meet. There are not enough hours in the working week, however that is measured, to prepare and lead all services and meetings as well as the pastoral work involved with considerable numbers of weddings and funerals, especially since the sudden death of our one Lay Reader.
Our pastor is also retiring tomorrow. He has been in ministry for over 30 years, fifteen of which have been here. Originally, he had hoped to be away from the congregation for a couple of years and then ease back in as an ordinary worshipper. We have had a number of retired ministers, including me, who do worship with us. Deal of it is, none of the rest of us ever pastored here. But the bishop has put the brakes on that idea. She made him sign a social contract that says he has to go to another congregation. There are eight other Lutheran congregations nearby, but there are also other denominations which would be a good fit for him too. It will be a bittersweet day tomorrow. Many people do like him; but after hearing many of his same sermon illustrations for years, plus not keeping up with the times--doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, we need new blood.
What about when the pastor is just a bad fit for the congregation and either refuses to acknowledge it or for other reasons won't leave? Or if they're simply not a good pastor?
To answer Ruth's question - in Methodism you wait 5 years. If it goes wrong again, you wait another 5 years. And if necessary, another 5 after that. That's been my experience - last 7 have been good.
Academic tenure (which originated in the US) isn't a concept that people in the UK come across very much - and the CofE's Common Tenure (clergy terms of service) doesn't have those connotations (if congregations are aware of the "tenure" aspect of it at all).
In the CofE, they wait for them to leave. Then breath a sigh of relief. Then wonder how long the interregnum will last and whether the next vicar will be any better. Issues in the CofE are traditionally resolved by waiting (for people to leave or die), which tends to select for patience in congregations. But the need for transparency and accountability, to be proactive about safeguarding, doesn't lend itself to this approach.
That brings to mind David Jenkins, one-time Bishop of Durham, even if he wasn't as heterodox as alleged.