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.
I have been quite critical of ministers which is likely to tar me as a miserable old git. But since there is no transparency, and no commitment to any measurable outcome, I do sometimes wonder how Clergy spend their time. I did get hold of Emma Percy's book on What do clergy do? and her view of the role was to be "The Mother of the Parish". I'm not too impressed by this but no doubt there are those who see this as a valid role.
When last in non-conformity I had no idea of what the Minister was doing with his time. It was presumed he was drinking tea with some lonely old ladies, whereas he was off and away conducting a multi-year affair with one of the ladies of the fellowship. For years.
Currently we have a Vicar, who also has a PA Administrator, plus a more general Church administrator (both paid), preaches maybe one fairly slight sermon per month, and . . . . . well I haven't a clue. I don't deny my attitude is easy to criticise, but I have no way to understand, since it is rude to ask the question. The person in question is in many ways admirable, so this helps me attitude-wise. I'm more likely to question why two paid admins are needed to keeps the (relatively small) show on the road.
Of course I am influenced by my Brother, who in many ways I disagreed with, but whose view was that his job was to grow the Church and get the members to visit each other, rather than leaving it up to him. His Church went well, grew reasonably, and he did this whilst also working two days a week to supplement his low stipend. And now the local conevo has a really good and energetic Pastor it is growing like topsy. Full to overflowing and extending their building. I see quite a strong connection between the health of the Church and the focus of the Minister on growing the Church. But that is my priority.
I see quite a strong connection between the health of the Church and the focus of the Minister on growing the Church. But that is my priority.
There are two issues here: one is that the focus of the minister is probably necessary but it is not sufficient. Plenty of ministers try, and fail, to grow churches. The other is that growth in numbers doesn't always reflect growth in faith and discipleship, and can be an ephemeral connection to that particular minister and their style of doing things.
Took me a long time to realize my job was not to grow a congregation. Simply put, my job was to preach the word, administer the sacraments, teach and visit. The real way congregations grow is one person inviting another. Our congregation was on a plateau for a while, then a young woman who was part of a young mother's group mentioned she was going to our congregation. All of the sudden, a dozen new families started coming. Of all the people in the congregation I attend, the people most likely to do the invite are below 21.
I'm more likely to question why two paid admins are needed to keeps the (relatively small) show on the road.
Are these appointments actually in the gift of the Vicar ? ime it's not unusual that the decision to create these roles often lies elsewhere and the person appointed either is or becomes part of the congregation - at which point it becomes very hard to get rid of the post.
Of course, the other side of this is that those who pay the minister (essentially the congregation) are not under any obligation to give a certain amount of money, to attend services or even to give of their time to the parish. We are all in a position of trust and, one hopes, charity. This, of course, comes with a lot of unspoken (and sometimes vociferously spoken) expectation and assumption.
I have always considered it my good fortune not to know what the minister does with their time, as I have assumed that they are spending it with those who need them, and God, more than I do.
The post above is particularly relevant to congregationalist set-ups (eg Congregational, Baptist), where the church directly pays the minister's stipend rather than contributing into a central fund from which all ministers are paid.
Are these appointments actually in the gift of the Vicar ?
Effectively yes. The last Vicar chose a leadership team, largely of those who were her friends and would agree with everything she said. The PCC was still there but more or less a rubber stamp.
The same thing happened at the Baptist Church previously referred to. The new Minister effectively dis-empowered the diaconate by appointing Elders, again from those who were close to him both personally and in terms of strategy. Now that did not last and the Leadership became very fractious.
I think this often happens due to the Church containing a high relative number of people who are looking for a Leader who can be a sort of Father figure and who are very likely to over idealize the Leader. I don't know the solution.
I suspect (but cannot know because our new Vicar is only recently appointed) that they can barely conceive of anybody doubting the way the Church is run. Which is why they do nothing to try and explain. Why to we as a fairly small Church need 6 paid staff? Are the all really effective? What is the reasoning that we need two paid administrators, but will not pay for a treasurer, which is a demanding role. There is no transparency, and I don't think the Leadership see a need for it.
Technically, I think, if the Treasurer is not a member of the PCC (which is permissible, I think) then they can be paid for their work.
You’re correct. A few years ago we had nobody suitable to be treasurer (long story) so we paid an accountant to do it until we could find someone to do it.
I am familiar with a number of Lutheran congregations that have contracted with a bookkeeping service to handle the treasurer duties. Being a treasurer is highly technical and most people just do not have those skills any longer. In my home congregation we have a retired bookkeeper who has done it for over ten years.
I am familiar with a number of Lutheran congregations that have contracted with a bookkeeping service to handle the treasurer duties. Being a treasurer is highly technical and most people just do not have those skills any longer. In my home congregation we have a retired bookkeeper who has done it for over ten years.
In American Presbyterian congregations (at least PC(USA) ones), the treasurer is a member of the congregation elected by the Session; it is a required position every congregation. Many congregations of any size also have a financial secretary, who is an employee. Our financial secretary is provided by a service we contract with; their business is providing financial and bookkeeping services to churches.
In the CofE, the incumbent has to keep a lot of plates spinning to get things approved by both the PCC and the Diocese. If s/he has diocesan approval and has a PCC of Yesmen that process is faster.
Something unquantifiable is the time it takes to prepare services and sermons. There are shortcuts of course, and lazy ways, but reading, prayer and preparation can take many hours. Is it always justifiable?
Are these appointments actually in the gift of the Vicar ?
Effectively yes. The last Vicar chose a leadership team, largely of those who were her friends and would agree with everything she said. The PCC was still there but more or less a rubber stamp.
'Effectively' in this sentence being anywhere from 'no' through 'I don't know' to 'not really'. They were appointed by the leaders appointed by the previous vicar (who presumably are still around in some form).
I suspect (but cannot know because our new Vicar is only recently appointed) that they can barely conceive of anybody doubting the way the Church is run.
Alternatively the failure of imagination is on your part; there are a range of possibilities from venal through to banal, for instance:
They recognise that there's a pace at which they can hope to change the church, every change involves struggle and incurs a psychic and emotional cost and fixing staffing in the church is rather low on their list of priorities. Or perhaps they don't plan to be there for long and have opted for the quiet life, etc etc.
In the CofE, the incumbent has to keep a lot of plates spinning to get things approved by both the PCC and the Diocese. If s/he has diocesan approval and has a PCC of Yesmen that process is faster.
Something unquantifiable is the time it takes to prepare services and sermons. There are shortcuts of course, and lazy ways, but reading, prayer and preparation can take many hours. Is it always justifiable?
I’m really curious about this. Were you Referring to the sermon and service prep time as being the thing that might not be justifiable?
If so, what do you consider the higher duties of a pastor/priest? I could see things like crisis counseling, though I’m not sure how much of that happens in a normal parish (I mean, unlike ours).
From my acquaintance with a number of parish priests, the word that describes much of their ministry is "pastoral". This includes visiting people and talking to them - in preparation for baptisms, weddings and funerals, as well as a whole extraordinary range of other pastoral issues and concerns. A vicar in the Church of England has a (pastoral) responsibility for all the people in their parish(es), not just the members of their church(es). Also attending meetings - although the boundary between meetings and pastoral work can be a bit fuzzy at times.
The rural parish priests I know (serving multiple parishes) have decidedly ambivalent feelings about the meetings they attend. From a purely business point of view, they are not time-efficient ways of making decisions. But the overwhelming majority of meetings involving parishioners are not merely gatherings of the members of a representative body - for someone responsible for the care of the parish, there is always a pastoral aspect.
Personally, I would say that for a rural parish priest, attending these meetings (and myriad other parish events) is more important than all the sermons you will ever preach. (I would usually add that attending meetings is not more important than a duty of self-care, or one's immediate family.)
Something unquantifiable is the time it takes to prepare services and sermons. There are shortcuts of course, and lazy ways, but reading, prayer and preparation can take many hours. Is it always justifiable?
I’m really curious about this. Were you Referring to the sermon and service prep time as being the thing that might not be justifiable?
If so, what do you consider the higher duties of a pastor/priest? I could see things like crisis counseling, though I’m not sure how much of that happens in a normal parish (I mean, unlike ours).
I think there are some clergy who might be hiding behind this “ preparation time” to justify their lack of pastoral care. Fortunately not too many. Sadly for rural clergy with many churches and congregations in their care preparation time may be squeezed out by other duties.
However as @pease said above, pastoral care is often facilitated or instigated by attendance at meetings.
I think this highlights the difference between the reading of an academic paper and a sermon. Although I'd hope that my sermon has some decent theological content, I'm not merely delivering a corpus of knowledge but aiming to inform, encourage and challenge people with whom I have a relationship.
That sounds very odd to me--you have meetings that surface pastoral care concerns? Then of course you have to prioritize them.... We have so few meetings, and all of our pastoral concern stuff comes in via word of mouth or over the phone. And naturally preaching takes a far higher role in a congregation filled with young believers and nonbelievers.
I think this highlights the difference between the reading of an academic paper and a sermon. Although I'd hope that my sermon has some decent theological content, I'm not merely delivering a corpus of knowledge but aiming to inform, encourage and challenge people with whom I have a relationship.
What specifically us highlighting the difference to you? Are you talking about the preparation time involved? AFAICT from observation and reading, a day or twos work per sermon isn't really that unusual in some circles.
Ours is a medium sized congregation in a town gown community. There are quite a number of meetings because of the size of the congregation. While I agree with @pease meetings can be a form of pastoral care, not all meetings need to be mandatory. I find it interesting, though, in some of the old congregational constitutions I have read, the purpose of the parish counsel, and by implication its various committees, is to assist the pastor in the pastoral care of the congregation.
I think the problem is one that I experience to a much lesser degree in my work. Which is that all sorts of different people have demands that they consider the most important.
So those with pastoral needs tend to assume that this is the most important thing to do. And, in fact, (often) their pastoral needs are the most important thing for the priest to attend to. "I mean, I don't often ask for help, it is not as if it is a constant thing". But the pastoral needs all add up - the different needs cannot all be handled.
And those who only attend on Sundays expect the priest to have put their time in to making sure it is just right. I mean, they only work one day a week, don't they? And sermon prep and service prep, and making sure everyone is able to turn up, and handling it when people have to drop out.
And then, of course, the diocese has its own demands, as has all sort of other demands, all of which are the Most Important Thing. And it is Only a Small Request.
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.
I have been quite critical of ministers which is likely to tar me as a miserable old git. But since there is no transparency, and no commitment to any measurable outcome, I do sometimes wonder how Clergy spend their time. I did get hold of Emma Percy's book on What do clergy do? and her view of the role was to be "The Mother of the Parish". I'm not too impressed by this but no doubt there are those who see this as a valid role.
When last in non-conformity I had no idea of what the Minister was doing with his time. It was presumed he was drinking tea with some lonely old ladies, whereas he was off and away conducting a multi-year affair with one of the ladies of the fellowship. For years.
Currently we have a Vicar, who also has a PA Administrator, plus a more general Church administrator (both paid), preaches maybe one fairly slight sermon per month, and . . . . . well I haven't a clue. I don't deny my attitude is easy to criticise, but I have no way to understand, since it is rude to ask the question. The person in question is in many ways admirable, so this helps me attitude-wise. I'm more likely to question why two paid admins are needed to keeps the (relatively small) show on the road.
Of course I am influenced by my Brother, who in many ways I disagreed with, but whose view was that his job was to grow the Church and get the members to visit each other, rather than leaving it up to him. His Church went well, grew reasonably, and he did this whilst also working two days a week to supplement his low stipend. And now the local conevo has a really good and energetic Pastor it is growing like topsy. Full to overflowing and extending their building. I see quite a strong connection between the health of the Church and the focus of the Minister on growing the Church. But that is my priority.
There are two issues here: one is that the focus of the minister is probably necessary but it is not sufficient. Plenty of ministers try, and fail, to grow churches. The other is that growth in numbers doesn't always reflect growth in faith and discipleship, and can be an ephemeral connection to that particular minister and their style of doing things.
Are these appointments actually in the gift of the Vicar ? ime it's not unusual that the decision to create these roles often lies elsewhere and the person appointed either is or becomes part of the congregation - at which point it becomes very hard to get rid of the post.
I have always considered it my good fortune not to know what the minister does with their time, as I have assumed that they are spending it with those who need them, and God, more than I do.
The same thing happened at the Baptist Church previously referred to. The new Minister effectively dis-empowered the diaconate by appointing Elders, again from those who were close to him both personally and in terms of strategy. Now that did not last and the Leadership became very fractious.
I think this often happens due to the Church containing a high relative number of people who are looking for a Leader who can be a sort of Father figure and who are very likely to over idealize the Leader. I don't know the solution.
I suspect (but cannot know because our new Vicar is only recently appointed) that they can barely conceive of anybody doubting the way the Church is run. Which is why they do nothing to try and explain. Why to we as a fairly small Church need 6 paid staff? Are the all really effective? What is the reasoning that we need two paid administrators, but will not pay for a treasurer, which is a demanding role. There is no transparency, and I don't think the Leadership see a need for it.
I'm sure most churches would love to have two administrators, but generally they have to manage with one extremely overworked one!
You’re correct. A few years ago we had nobody suitable to be treasurer (long story) so we paid an accountant to do it until we could find someone to do it.
Something unquantifiable is the time it takes to prepare services and sermons. There are shortcuts of course, and lazy ways, but reading, prayer and preparation can take many hours. Is it always justifiable?
'Effectively' in this sentence being anywhere from 'no' through 'I don't know' to 'not really'. They were appointed by the leaders appointed by the previous vicar (who presumably are still around in some form).
Alternatively the failure of imagination is on your part; there are a range of possibilities from venal through to banal, for instance:
They recognise that there's a pace at which they can hope to change the church, every change involves struggle and incurs a psychic and emotional cost and fixing staffing in the church is rather low on their list of priorities. Or perhaps they don't plan to be there for long and have opted for the quiet life, etc etc.
I’m really curious about this. Were you Referring to the sermon and service prep time as being the thing that might not be justifiable?
If so, what do you consider the higher duties of a pastor/priest? I could see things like crisis counseling, though I’m not sure how much of that happens in a normal parish (I mean, unlike ours).
Personally, I would say that for a rural parish priest, attending these meetings (and myriad other parish events) is more important than all the sermons you will ever preach. (I would usually add that attending meetings is not more important than a duty of self-care, or one's immediate family.)
I think there are some clergy who might be hiding behind this “ preparation time” to justify their lack of pastoral care. Fortunately not too many. Sadly for rural clergy with many churches and congregations in their care preparation time may be squeezed out by other duties.
However as @pease said above, pastoral care is often facilitated or instigated by attendance at meetings.
What specifically us highlighting the difference to you? Are you talking about the preparation time involved? AFAICT from observation and reading, a day or twos work per sermon isn't really that unusual in some circles.
So those with pastoral needs tend to assume that this is the most important thing to do. And, in fact, (often) their pastoral needs are the most important thing for the priest to attend to. "I mean, I don't often ask for help, it is not as if it is a constant thing". But the pastoral needs all add up - the different needs cannot all be handled.
And those who only attend on Sundays expect the priest to have put their time in to making sure it is just right. I mean, they only work one day a week, don't they? And sermon prep and service prep, and making sure everyone is able to turn up, and handling it when people have to drop out.
And then, of course, the diocese has its own demands, as has all sort of other demands, all of which are the Most Important Thing. And it is Only a Small Request.