# Should a Pastor Buy or Rent a Home?



## thistle93

Hi! I am wondering what any fellow pastors thinks about a pastor buying a house or just renting given that the average pastor stay at a particular church is 3-5 years. I am pastoring a church and have been here in a small rural church for almost 4 years. I would like to stay here for longer but I would be surprised if I make it here more than a couple more years. This was my first pastorate and I did not even think about the matter and so my family and I just decided we wanted to buy a house. The issue is will we have a hard time selling it if we have to move in the next couple of years. Personal experiences? Next time would it be best to rent and then when know going to be somewhere a while to buy? Of course I trust in the sovereignty of God but I want to be a good steward and take care of my family. Blessings!




For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## JonathanHunt

Why should 'the average pastor stay' have anything to do with our decisions? We are not 'average pastors' in terms of the doctrine and order we espouse. (We may be very average in other respects!) We are very unusual pastors. Our churches (reformed) should be unusual churches. I hope I never leave my church until I am either incapable of preaching and pastoring effectively or I drop down dead.


----------



## MarieP

Buying is better than than renting because you never get the money back for a rental. You do, however, get at least some back from buying and then selling, even in this market.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Not if you sell too soon---you could actually end up being upside down or taking loss, depending on down payment, financing, etc. Happened to me--I had to sell at a loss in 2001.


----------



## JoannaV

If you do end up being called to a new pastorate, this may be something you discuss with your new church. For one thing, if you are in a new area the church members will be able to tell you exactly how renting and buying in their area compare. I know some SBC churches have whatever-you-call-it houses for the pastor.


----------



## Unoriginalname

JoannaV said:


> I know some SBC churches have whatever-you-call-it houses for the pastor.


Do you mean a parsonage?


----------



## smhbbag

http://news.fiu.edu/2011/03/second-...enting-can-be-a-better-financial-choice/22483


----------



## J. Dean

> Should a Pastor Buy or Rent a Home?


You would prefer they be homeless?


----------



## Edward

MarieP said:


> You do, however, get at least some back from buying and then selling, even in this market.



Not necessicerily. Even in a flat market, you aren't going to recover the closing costs if you sell too quickly. And for most of the country, the market hasn't even been flat the last few years.


----------



## VictorBravo

Edward said:


> Not necessicerily. Even in a flat market, you aren't going to recover the closing costs if you sell too quickly. And for most of the country, the market hasn't even been flat the last few years.



Agreed. If Dillon's anything like Clarkston (I've lived in both places), you are likely to be in the hole on a house purchase for at least 5 years. If you reasonably think you will stay longer, buying might make sense. If not, renting is probably the best option.

But it really does depend on the local rental market. I know some people who have found it cheaper to pay interest on a home loan than to rent. They have virtually no equity, and probably won't for several years, so they are like renters in any event.


----------



## he beholds

I've heard that renting is the new American Dream at least because if you rent, your savings could go to more wealth-building investments rather than fixing roofs and water heaters and stuff. I am holding on to this since we rent : )


----------



## JoannaV

Unoriginalname said:


> JoannaV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know some SBC churches have whatever-you-call-it houses for the pastor.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean a parsonage?
Click to expand...


Probably. Every denomination seems to have a different name for it so I never know who has what


----------



## Edward

VictorBravo said:


> But it really does depend on the local rental market.



Yes. We bought at the end of the last crunch, and house payments were lower than rent had been on a smaller house. Same school district, houses about the same age. 

Right now, it would probably make sense to buy in good areas of Atlanta, parts of Florida, Las Vegas and Phoenix, as they should be near the bottom but they may not be there yet. Dallas and Houston are probably near 'normal' conditions, and parts of California may have significant potential for additional loss of value. 

Don't ask Real Estate folks. Their answer is likely to be BUY! NOW!!!. A bankruptcy lawyer might be able to give you a better picture. One factor to look at would be the backlog of unforeclosed homes in the market. That's going to be an indicator of future downward pressure - or at least something to balance upward pressure. 




VictorBravo said:


> so they are like renters in any event.



Probably so in a single cause of action state, but with significantly greater consequences in a state that makes it easy to get a deficiency.


----------



## VictorBravo

Edward said:


> Probably so in a single cause of action state, but with significantly greater consequences in a state that makes it easy to get a deficiency.



Right, I should have clarified. WA doesn't allow deficiencies for deed of trust foreclosures, but in judicial foreclosures they are allowed. Nobody does judicial foreclosures around here except for the rare case of the rich guy hiding assets.

Idaho allows deficiencies on all foreclosures, Montana does not, generally speaking. 

But the no-deficiency rule only applies on purchase money loans. If you go with a home equity loan, you can be stuck.

I'm in bankruptcy court pretty often. It is amazing how things have shifted in the past 5 years. It used to be make sense for people to go with a chapter 13 and save their homes. Now that is relatively rare because most people are upside down--no plan to reaffirm a debt bigger than the asset is worth would ever be approved.


----------



## reformedminister

Unoriginalname said:


> JoannaV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know some SBC churches have whatever-you-call-it houses for the pastor.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean a parsonage?
Click to expand...


How about a Manse? Parsonages are for Methodists!


----------



## reaganmarsh

Our church calls our home a "pastorium" -- which is a funny word to me (and to be honest, it just sounds effeminate). 

We got in the habit of calling the house the "parsonage" while I was pastoring in NC and, for us, it just stuck. 

Either way, I love being able to walk across the parking lot to my study each morning and walk home for lunch each day!

Pretty sure that this doesn't actually contribute to the discussion of whether pastors ought to rent or buy... ;-)


----------



## Edward

VictorBravo said:


> It used to be make sense for people to go with a chapter 13 and save their homes.



That varies regionally as well. In some areas, folks try to show that they are underwater on the first so that they can lien strip the second in a 13. Which side are you usually on? 

I try to avoid the 13s when I can. 11s and 12s are fine.


----------



## VictorBravo

Edward said:


> Which side are you usually on?



When I was in Seattle, it was 50-50. Mostly business bankruptcy representing debtors or creditors. Maybe 30% of them consumer debtors.

Here in the Snake River Valley, it's mostly debtors. Not very many creditors, and they already have their lawyers.


----------



## Andres

If you buy a home and then have to move, would you consider renting the property for some time? I don't know about the area you live in, but here, you are virtually guaranteed to profit on a rental.


----------



## DMcFadden

It used to be the case that CA real estate was a no-brainer. Rapid appreciation meant that you could often "earn" enough equity on a very modest home to sell and buy multiple homes in places like the midwest. The last decade destroyed that dream for many people, leaving the situation that several posts have discussed. My 1249 sq ft 90 year old So. Cal. house in a modest neighborhood sold for $150k less than at the peak of the market.

So, as they say in real estate . . . location, location, location. In some parts of the US this is an IDEAL time to purchase a home if you can afford it. Prices are often at historic lows, mortgage rates are a joke for some of us who remember when mortgages could be between 15%-18% (thank you Jimmy Carter).

However, IF you serve a Baptist congregation and are experiencing some conflicts between the members and yourself, IF you want to be able to pick up stakes and move "cleanly" without renting to someone else, IF you are in a part of the country where real estate values are not likely to rise much, renting may represent a wiser choice.

If you know a financial adviser who knows the real estate dynamics in your locale, it would be a great idea to seek this kind of counsel, tailored to your specific situation and financial position, prior to making any decision about home ownership.


----------



## KevinInReno

Pre-boom historically Real Estate went up at the rate of inflation essentially... around 3%. What you might want to do is for the area you live in... get past home values (easy with Zillow these days)... and use the 3% rule to see if it's properly corrected itself yet... That being said the rental market (for property owners) should still be strong for quite awhile with all the foreclosed homes around the country. 4-7 years of lag from when the average person short sells to when they can likely purchase again... and that is if they have all their ducks in a row.

I might also ask yourself if it's a place you could see yourself retiring at. I know I don't love Las Vegas... but my wife and I are likely to buy a property soon down here. One large reason we've ultimately decided to do it is because we could see ourselves later in life seasonally living in Las Vegas during the winter, fall, and early spring.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I am a big proponent of manses/parsonages for churches. They make life easier for both the congregation and the minister. I know several churches that sold their manses and have long regretted it, especially small churches. I love living in a manse, it makes life so much easier and gives us far more flexibility.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I love living in a manse, it makes life so much easier and gives us far more flexibility.



How so?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well for one if I would leave I don't have the headache of having to sell a house and then that being my main focus during the early, and arguably most crucial, period of a transition to a new call. I have the flexibility to give 100% to the new call the second I walk through the door instead of still having one foot where I have left.

I also don't have to worry about major repairs or having to replace appliances or anything like that, it is all covered by the church. Just as an example, here in Ellisville during the Tropical Storm that ran through last year a tree branch crushed the roof of the carport and it had to be completely replaced. Since the manse is covered under the Church's insurance it was quickly and easily replaced. If it had been my house then I can only imagine how much time and energy that would have taken away from my ministry dealing with that.


----------



## Andres

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Since the manse is covered under the Church's insurance it was quickly and easily replaced. If it had been my house then I can only imagine how much time and energy that would have taken away from my ministry dealing with that.



Not trying to argue your point, but if you owned your own house, you would have still had insurance to cover the same thing, right?


----------



## a mere housewife

Joshua uses cologne and bathes at least once a month. 

I just thought I would add that to the discussion since it was lacking thus far.


----------



## matt01

a mere housewife said:


> Joshua uses cologne and bathes at least once a month.



Interesting, though I don't understand how it adds anything of value to the discussion.


----------



## ProtestantBankie

matt01 said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua uses cologne and bathes at least once a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, though I don't understand how it adds anything of value to the discussion.
Click to expand...


It is a running joke on this forum. It adds a little bit of joy to the readers.

_______

I worry though. If I read my Minister asking about whether he should be planning to move to another congregation, I would be greatly troubled.


----------



## JOwen

I agree with Backwoods. My congregation provides our very large family with a wonderful parsonage, 20 yards from the Church. I could not imagine renting in our area where 90% of the homes are owned. Someone told me it would cost 2000-3000/per month to accommodate our family in our area.
I think the pastor should be free from worldly hindrances as they pertain to finances if at all possible. I know of a fellow minister who bought his own home and when he was called to another congregation, couldn't sell it for over two years. Nearly broke him.

I think we need to get back to parsonage provision if at all possible. 

P.S
My congregation supplies generously to my 401k every year, so they are conscious of my retirement as well.

Blessings,


----------



## Edward

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I am a big proponent of manses/parsonages for churches. They make life easier for both the congregation and the minister. I know several churches that sold their manses and have long regretted it, especially small churches. I love living in a manse, it makes life so much easier and gives us far more flexibility.



And when you retire, instead of having a paid-for house, purchased with a tax advantaged housing allowance, you'll be renting with your retirement income.


----------



## a mere housewife

ProtestantBankie said:


> matt01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua uses cologne and bathes at least once a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, though I don't understand how it adds anything of value to the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a running joke on this forum. It adds a little bit of joy to the readers.
Click to expand...


Exactly. I hope it doesn't sound rude for I don't mean to be, but I don't see why I should have to defend the value of Joshua bathing once a month.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Edward said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a big proponent of manses/parsonages for churches. They make life easier for both the congregation and the minister. I know several churches that sold their manses and have long regretted it, especially small churches. I love living in a manse, it makes life so much easier and gives us far more flexibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when you retire, instead of having a paid-for house, purchased with a tax advantaged housing allowance, you'll be renting with your retirement income.
Click to expand...


In my case that is not true. It also isn't the case if you, like I have done, prepare correctly for that now. There is a fallacy in housing allowance and "equity" being the only way to prepare for the kind of scenario you propose.


----------



## Scottish Lass

I agree with Ben. I love living in a manse. I didn't have to come to a strange city, try to figure out which neighborhoods were best, find an honest Realtor, deal with mortgage companies, etc. We moved in to a beautifully remodeled home that our tiny congregation had also stocked with basic provisions. When we eventually move on, we will not have to deal with selling this house (much less possibly facing two mortgages). Repairs and maintenance are handled at no expense to us (though Ben must have it easier---Tim has to deal with all the repairmen for both the church and the manse!). Having the manse near the church (we can see the property from our adjoining backyard) is convenient, too. 

Now, given that's not an option at most churches, I'd recommend renting unless you feel fairly certain you'll be there, in that specific house, for five years or more. In a new city (which is usually the case), that's a big commitment to make given the limited time one has to explore before the move.


----------



## Edward

Hope this isn't too far off topic, but putting the Manse issue aside, does renting rather than buying send a signal that the pastor has one foot out the door and may be looking to move to something better as quickly as he can, while a purchase may signal a commitment to the community?


----------



## Humble_penitent

Edward said:


> Hope this isn't too far off topic, but putting the Manse issue aside, does renting rather than buying send a signal that the pastor has one foot out the door and may be looking to move to something better as quickly as he can, while a purchase may signal a commitment to the community?



Or does it show that the pastor does not want the hassles of upkeeping a home and would rather have someone else worry about it?


----------



## Unoriginalname

My biggest concern for pastors living in manses/parsonages is the event that the church turns on them and they are all of a sudden out of an income and a place to live. I have known a couple of pastors who; when they were deemed unwanted, nearly lost everything because of the sudden discontinuation of income, so I imagine that the situation would be far worse if that took place in a church where the pastor was their tenant.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Unoriginalname said:


> My biggest concern for pastors living in manses/parsonages is the event that the church turns on them and they are all of a sudden out of an income and a place to live. I have known a couple of pastors who; when they were deemed unwanted, nearly lost everything because of the sudden discontinuation of income, so I imagine that the situation would be far worse if that took place in a church where the pastor was their tenant.


Many (most?) of us living in manses save the money we would spend on housing and set it aside. Removing a minister is a slow process in Presbyterian circles, so there would be time to prepare. Again, I think it would be worse to have no income, yet have a mortgage that must be paid.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian




----------



## ProtestantBankie

Unoriginalname said:


> My biggest concern for pastors living in manses/parsonages is the event that the church turns on them and they are all of a sudden out of an income and a place to live. I have known a couple of pastors who; when they were deemed unwanted, nearly lost everything because of the sudden discontinuation of income, so I imagine that the situation would be far worse if that took place in a church where the pastor was their tenant.



In Scotland, there have frequently been times when Ministers have been "turned on" unjustly. But even in these cases, the Christian Church being what it is, can be gracious with people. I know of one man who was thrown out of the Ministry (wrongly) and was allowed to stay in his manse for 6 months. 

Other times, Men in the Ministry have violated the office and need to be thrown out - but the Christian Church still deals graciously with them - and gives them all the help it can in order to move on.

One of the practical benefits of Biblical Church Government.


----------

