# Pastor's Salary



## bobtheman (Oct 28, 2015)

Can anyone give me any references to any materials (books) or can anyone give me their opinion on the pastors salary in regards to the percentage of the budget and the available income. 

What percentage of an overall budget should salaries in total be capped at? 
When we are looking at our income compared to our spending ... we are noticing a problem.


So for example, if your church's budget is 80k, and your salaries accounts for 65k .. roughly 81 percent of your entire spending - this seems problematic to me. I want to say, 40 - 50 % would be more sustainable and responsible but wanted others opinions


Secondly, and very important .. 

Suppose a church's total yearly budget is 45k, and the salary for one paid staff is 30k. Close to 68 percent of your budget. Would it be most appropriate for the church to admit that they cannot afford a full time pastor (because to cut their pay by 10k and to ask them to continue to work full time would be unjust) ... or should they neglect the other aspects of the church's responsibilities and commit to paying the staff regardless?


----------



## Edward (Oct 28, 2015)

Generally, the pastor should be able to maintain the lifestyle of the average church membership. Now, because of tax laws, that might be a slightly lower gross income. If the church cannot afford a full time pastor, they need to look at alternate arrangements - sharing with another church; retirees, tentmakers. 

Quick google:

http://www1.salary.com/Pastor-Salary.html

http://www.churchlawandtax.com/blog...salaries-and-benefits-for-senior-pastors.html

Presbyterians have an advantage over Baptists - the terms of the call are to be approved by the Presbytery, which perhaps provides some level of protection for the pastor.


----------



## Edward (Oct 28, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> What percentage of an overall budget should salaries in total be capped at?



That's not really relevant to the cost of a roof over his head, food on the table, and clothes for his children, is it? You are looking at it backwards.


----------



## bobtheman (Oct 28, 2015)

Edward said:


> bobtheman said:
> 
> 
> > What percentage of an overall budget should salaries in total be capped at?
> ...




With regards to the finance committee, and providing a monthly finance report the the congregation there comes a point where the leadership has to be able to clearly express and justify the expenses a church has. 

I guess what i'm asking is - when the finances no longer allow the church to pay the staff members an acceptable salary, is this the moment the church closes it doors and no longer exists? 

If, for example, staff expenditures are 90+ % of the budget ... who is the church serving? 

For what purpose does the church exist (because you can look at the finance reports and budgets as a good indicator as to what the church exists for and for whom).


----------



## Edward (Oct 28, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> If, for example, staff expenditures are 90+ % of the budget ... who is the church serving?



The membership? 



bobtheman said:


> For what purpose does the church exist



Primarily, the worship of God including 'The reading of the Scriptures, preaching, and hearing the Word of God, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord; as also the administration of baptism, and the Lord's supper'. 

Secondarily, pastoral and diaconal care. 



bobtheman said:


> when the finances no longer allow the church to pay the staff members an acceptable salary, is this the moment the church closes it doors and no longer exists?



Are things likely to turn around? If not, it is probably time to look at and end-game strategy. Are there other options for the few remaining members? If so, the plug should probably be pulled sooner than it should if the members would be left unchurched. 

As I mentioned above, there are options if the church can't support a full time pastor. Sharing with another church, calling a tentmaker, asking a larger church to loan a pastor, finding a retired pastor in the area who feels a call for a part time ministry, senior seminary students on a rotating basis, a franchise deal with a regional or national megachurch. But everyone needs to understand the costs of each of these. The deacons are going to have to take up much of the pastoral care. There won't be a preacher available at the members' beck and call.


----------



## Jack K (Oct 28, 2015)

Fifty percent on salaries is a good round figure for most larger churches. In a smaller church, I would think there's no hard-and-fast rule. Much will depend on the individual situation. Suppose a church has no rent or mortgage expenses, or meets in a space where it isn't responsible for maintenance and utility costs, or has other typical church expenses met in a way that doesn't tap into the budget. Then the pastor's salary could be well above the 50% mark.

Another rule of thumb is that spending on ministry salaries tends to come back, in terms of eventual increased membership and giving, in a way that other spending does not. So a church wondering if it can afford another pastor's salary should realize that the pastor is ultimately more affordable than some other expense initially costing the same amount.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Oct 28, 2015)

Jack K said:


> Another rule of thumb is that spending on ministry salaries tends to come back, in terms of eventual increased membership and giving, in a way that other spending does not. So a church wondering if it can afford another pastor's salary should realize that the pastor is ultimately more affordable than some other expense initially costing the same amount.



I think that is an important thing to remember, people will look past your church if you do not have a pastor.


----------



## Edward (Oct 28, 2015)

Unoriginalname said:


> I think that is an important thing to remember, people will look past your church if you do not have a pastor.



Not necessarily, if you are bringing in nationally or regionally known names to fill the pulpit.


----------



## bobtheman (Oct 28, 2015)

Edward said:


> bobtheman said:
> 
> 
> > If, for example, staff expenditures are 90+ % of the budget ... who is the church serving?
> ...



*
"for what purpose does the church exists, and for whom? "*
I dont think you saw the real meaning behind this question so I wanted to add some context. 

Suppose the salaries are exceeding 80 percent, after monthly bills and supplies the church is left with very little to preform any other services. 

For example, suppose the church provides food to the homeless once a month, or suppose the church provides a VBS once a year, or suppose the church is no longer able to provide love offerings, or to compensate guest visitors, so on and so forth. 

It becomes a question of who gets paid first, and who gets cut. 

Do you determine that all additional functions of the church, which may have ministry meaning and importance, are to expensive to maintain this 80/20 split? SO to keep it, you gut everything else and keep the salaries as is to continue to serve the church (themselves) first? Put us over them first. 

Lastly, can you with a clean conscious tell members that 80 cents on every dollar you give goes to supporting one or two people. It becomes a question of ... are we a church, a non profit organization meant to service the general population, or are we serving and supporting one or two people. 

Hopefully that makes it a little more clear.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 28, 2015)

A number of sources:

Among Southern Baptists: http://compstudy.lifeway.com/summaryreport.do

http://www.pensions.org/AvailableRe...ns/Documents/ClergyEffectiveSalaries_2014.pdf





http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Senior_Pastor/Salary


----------



## Edward (Oct 28, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> For example, suppose the church provides food to the homeless once a month, or suppose the church provides a VBS once a year, or suppose the church is no longer able to provide love offerings, or to compensate guest visitors, so on and so forth.



The diaconal ministries of Acts are first to the widows and orphans of the church. If you have resources to run a homeless meals program, I wouldn't say that you shouldn't (see James 1) but if you don't have the resources, you don't have the resources. As for 'Love Offerings' - not sure what you are including there. As for compensating guest visitors, again I'm not sure what is included. If you are talking honoraria to guest preachers/speakers, well, perhaps that's something else you can't afford at the moment. 

Given the numbers you've used above, we must be talking about a church with, at most, three dozen families, probably closer to two dozen, or else one made up primarily of folks making minimum wage/public assistance. (If the latter, refer back to my comment about making what the membership makes). 




bobtheman said:


> Do you determine that all additional functions of the church, which may have ministry meaning and importance, are to expensive to maintain this 80/20 split?



Appears so.




bobtheman said:


> you gut everything else and keep the salaries as is to continue to serve the church (themselves) first?



Yep.




bobtheman said:


> Lastly, can you with a clean conscious tell members that 80 cents on every dollar you give goes to supporting one or two people



Well, if they don't like it, they can cut back on personal spending and give a bit more to the church if they are living better than the preacher is. As an alternative, they could bring guests and try to grow the giving base. It sounds like we are talking about a couple of dozen families or so. Bring a mirror to the meeting in case anyone wants to see where the problem might well be. 

And if they think only one or two people are benefitting from the preaching, why don't they just sleep in on Sunday mornings. Doesn't sound like anyone is getting anything out of church, anyway. And they can support the local soup kitchen directly, and cut out the intermediary.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 28, 2015)

Bob, when you ask for whom does the church exist—and who does it serve—I would answer, first, it serves Christ, and that by (second) serving His people. A pastor can minister the word and Gospel of God to the end of sustaining the saved of the flock unto eternal life. Paying a pastor is not the chief service given; the chief service is to Christ's struggling brethren. The real riches are the spiritual.

Such a struggling church could set aside a day of fasting, with prayer, say, once a month, that the Lord would grant them growth, and also wisdom as how to evangelize the area. This would then increase the "service" to the lost of the surrounding community. Don't throw in the towel too quickly! Don't lose hope! Your God is mighty, and wise.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 28, 2015)

The chief asset that a church has is its pastor. Every effort should be made to maintain the ministry of the word in the church. Paul teaches that faith comes by hearing the word proclaimed by sent men (that is, ministers). God has not promised to save through VBS programs or soup kitchens. Furnish the church and the community with God's ordinances, and if there's anything left over, find out how it can be used well.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 28, 2015)

Pastors can serve communion and baptize. Along with preaching the Word. Soup kitchens are great (I've worked at them and did evangelism at homeless shelters) but that's not the point of the church.


----------



## robinshi (Oct 28, 2015)

The church I am currently attending is very special. Most of the members are students, which means few incomes. So even though the pastor works as full-time, the church can not afford his salary. His wife has to work hard for the family.


----------



## Jack K (Oct 28, 2015)

A small church needs to give first consideration to pastoral staff. Other functions are optional (even paid-for meeting space), but you need a pastor of some sort for the basic ministry of the Word, and a paid pastor helps immensely. In a small church, it's not unusual for the pastor's salary to be a very large portion of the total budget, especially if facility expenses are low. If the pastor is doing his job properly, this does NOT mean the church exists only to keep a pastor employed. The pastor is serving the congregation, so money spent on the pastor is money spent on the whole church. Most pastors are busier than the average member realizes. They must study and pray, prepare sermons and preach them, teach classes, visit those in need, counsel those with troubles, guide lay leaders, evangelize the lost, and more.

Now, if the pastor is not really doing his job as he ought to, that's another matter. But don't make the mistake of thinking Sunday school materials and food for the homeless are the church's "real ministry." They are not. They can be nice things to have, but the central ministry of the Word must be covered first.

Is the church small and declining in membership? If so, there may indeed be reasons to consider folding. But the mere fact that funding for other programs has been cut while a pastor's salary remains suggests the church's priorities are in order, even if there may be other problems to address.


----------



## bobtheman (Oct 28, 2015)

Jack K said:


> A small church needs to give first consideration to pastoral staff. Other functions are optional (even paid-for meeting space), but you need a pastor of some sort for the basic ministry of the Word, and a paid pastor helps immensely. In a small church, it's not unusual for the pastor's salary to be a very large portion of the total budget, especially if facility expenses are low. If the pastor is doing his job properly, this does NOT mean the church exists only to keep a pastor employed. The pastor is serving the congregation, so money spent on the pastor is money spent on the whole church. Most pastors are busier than the average member realizes. They must study and pray, prepare sermons and preach them, teach classes, visit those in need, counsel those with troubles, guide lay leaders, evangelize the lost, and more.
> 
> Now, if the pastor is not really doing his job as he ought to, that's another matter. But don't make the mistake of thinking Sunday school materials and food for the homeless are the church's "real ministry." They are not. They can be nice things to have, but the central ministry of the Word must be covered first.
> 
> Is the church small and declining in membership? If so, there may indeed be reasons to consider folding. But the mere fact that funding for other programs has been cut while a pastor's salary remains suggests the church's priorities are in order, even if there may be other problems to address.




This isn't a fight over my ministry is more important than yours because of a budget battle. 

The cutbacks at this establishment have already occurred. The task now is to stop the bleeding or close the doors.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 28, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > A small church needs to give first consideration to pastoral staff. Other functions are optional (even paid-for meeting space), but you need a pastor of some sort for the basic ministry of the Word, and a paid pastor helps immensely. In a small church, it's not unusual for the pastor's salary to be a very large portion of the total budget, especially if facility expenses are low. If the pastor is doing his job properly, this does NOT mean the church exists only to keep a pastor employed. The pastor is serving the congregation, so money spent on the pastor is money spent on the whole church. Most pastors are busier than the average member realizes. They must study and pray, prepare sermons and preach them, teach classes, visit those in need, counsel those with troubles, guide lay leaders, evangelize the lost, and more.
> ...



Can the church cut some things out to keep these:
Pastor's salary
Bread
Wine
Water
Overhead


----------



## bobtheman (Oct 28, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> bobtheman said:
> 
> 
> > Jack K said:
> ...



Good question. So, no not really. There is nothing left to cut, other than salaries and supplies. 

So it seems that the answer to the question is this: the Salary of staff,particularly the pastor, is of utmost importance. Cut other things in the pursuit of this asset.


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 29, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> So it seems that the answer to the question is this: the Salary of staff,particularly the pastor, is of utmost importance. Cut other things in the pursuit of this asset.



I was looking over the exchanges above to see what "staff" did. If the one paid staff is a pastor, and he is paid 30k out of an 80k budget, something is askew.

If there is paid staff for something else, I'd look hard at why.

I can only say that I've known of many churches with annual budgets in the 80-100k range that pay a living wage to their pastors. (Location matters, of course--it wouldn't work in Manhattan). The rest goes to facility rent, honoraria for visiting preachers, and missions or seminary support. These churches put a primary focus on preaching and making sure the pastor is properly cared for materially.

BTW, bread and wine are often donated by members in some churches.


----------



## bobtheman (Oct 29, 2015)

VictorBravo said:


> bobtheman said:
> 
> 
> > So it seems that the answer to the question is this: the Salary of staff,particularly the pastor, is of utmost importance. Cut other things in the pursuit of this asset.
> ...




What would your opinion be if the budget is for .. 50k and the salaries Is 40


----------



## Edward (Oct 29, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> What would your opinion be if the budget is for .. 50k and the salaries Is 40



My opinion would be that there isn't a pastor pay issue, there is a membership issue. Looks like there are about 30 9Marks churches in the greater Charlotte area. Why is this one failing? I could make some pretty good guesses, but I won't, without more facts. But I'll repeat what I said earlier, in somewhat different language: you are barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## Jake (Oct 29, 2015)

Edward said:


> Looks like there are about 30 Acts 9 churches in the greater Charlotte area.



You'll have to explain what an Acts 9 church is. My best guess is Acts 9:31?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 29, 2015)

I am sure Edward meant Acts 29


----------



## Edward (Oct 29, 2015)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I am sure Edward meant Acts 29



Actually, I meant 9 Marks. I'll fix my post. 

It's a network of broadly reformed/reformed leaning Baptist and Presbyterian churches. It's sometimes a good starting point, although due diligence is required.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 29, 2015)

Edward said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure Edward meant Acts 29
> ...


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 29, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> What would your opinion be if the budget is for .. 50k and the salaries Is 40



Of course, it depends on location and cost of living, but overall, if the extra 10k meets basic expenses (like having a place to meet, necessary supplies, etc.), I can't say that's out of line. In some places a pastor could get by on 40k, but not in a lot of places. If you are trying to maintain support staff in addition, I'd think that means that the pastor is not going to be paid to be a pastor.

By location and cost of living I'm talking about what it costs to live reasonably in the community. If a one-room condo costs $2000 a month to live, there's no way a pastor could reasonably live off the salary in your scenario. It then looks more like a mission situation requiring outside support or a bivocational calling.

As for percentage of the budget, my tendency is to put priority on preaching and gathering. Other things are more incidental.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Oct 29, 2015)

The Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) is a presbyterian denomination which in Scotland £648,819 was given by congregations to the upkeep of the Ministry and work of the central body, £509,062 (78.4%) was spent on the salaries and support of the ministry. (National Insurance contributions &c.)

In 2012, Congregational Remittances to the central fund was £609,103 and the total spent on Pastors salaries and so on was £457,296. (75.1%)

Between three-quarters and and four-fifths being spent on this purpose does not seem out of line.

But naturally - nobody is making a rule about these kinds of figures!


----------



## Edward (Nov 3, 2015)

ProtestantBankie said:


> In 2012, Congregational Remittances to the central fund was £609,103 and the total spent on Pastors salaries and so on was £457,296. (75.1%)



Are pastors paid by the denomination? If so, does everyone get the same pay scale, or does it depend on location and congregation size?


----------

