The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church-2012, ¶139.
Clergy work for God, not for money.
As we've seen, Wesley's "Gain all you can" is an instruction to spend time well, not a call to exact all we can from our employers. This is particularly clear when our employer is the Church. If the ultimate use of money is to help us love others, then how can taking extra money from the Church - the body of Christ whose sole purpose is to love - be helpful?
How might we organize differently if we were agreed that clergy are living sacrifices, all equally beloved, all wholly devoted to the work of the Church? The following are not fleshed-out proposals, but they are serious suggestions for discussion, ideas that I believe make perfectly good sense from a Christian standpoint:
As we've seen, Wesley's "Gain all you can" is an instruction to spend time well, not a call to exact all we can from our employers. This is particularly clear when our employer is the Church. If the ultimate use of money is to help us love others, then how can taking extra money from the Church - the body of Christ whose sole purpose is to love - be helpful?
How might we organize differently if we were agreed that clergy are living sacrifices, all equally beloved, all wholly devoted to the work of the Church? The following are not fleshed-out proposals, but they are serious suggestions for discussion, ideas that I believe make perfectly good sense from a Christian standpoint:
- Salaries of clergy should be viewed as living stipends, not as a reward or an exchange for services rendered. People are better able to "devote themselves wholly to the work of the Church" if their monetary needs are taken care of, but (as we shall see next week) money is not a reasonable "reward" for people following the example of Jesus Christ.
- In light of the above, churches should be encouraged to pay a fixed salary, rather than being encouraged to "pay more in order to get a better pastor." The English Methodist system (where all clergy are paid via apportionments) would be ideal but I believe has been ruled as unconstitutional under our current Discipline.
The argument has been made at Annual Conference that we need to pay more in order to get better clergy. I do not believe this is the case. If someone is in the clergy business to make money, I already know that they are neither the best pastor (the best pastors are not motivated by higher salaries) nor the best administrator (good administrators make much more money in other fields). I don't want to encourage clergy to join our conference with the hope that they will be able to "work their way up" to a high-paying job. I want to encourage clergy to join our conference with the hope that they will be able to serve God and love their neighbor. - Consideration of salary should be entirely removed from the appointive process. I was horrified when I discovered, about three years after taking my vows, that matching a church's ability to pay with the desired salary of a particular person was a factor in making appointments. I committed my life and the life of my family to this system, promising to go wherever I was appointed, under the understanding that appointments matched the gifts and graces of clergy with the needs of churches. To find that someone "couldn't be appointed for monetary reasons" to an otherwise suitable match was my first (and still major) loss of faith in the connection.
- Clergy paid by the conference should be paid Conference minimum, which should be enough for someone to live on. We have no control over the bishop's salary, but the bishop can lead the Conference through visibly abundant giving - not to be praised by others, but letting their light shine, so that others might see their good works and give glory to God. District Superintendents and other Conference leaders can care adequately for their families - recall that Conference minimum, when taking housing into account, is above the median household income - and be a visible example of servant leadership.
- Clergy needs should be covered by the conference. There are occasions when a family has extensive special needs, most notably when one or more members have extensive physical problems. Clergy fresh out of seminary typically have extensive debt - currently averaging almost $50,000. Clergy should be able to count on the Church to assist in these extra needs.
What do you think?
What are the pros and cons of treating salaries as living stipends, instead of compensation for work done and/or incentive for more/better work?
No comments:
Post a Comment