Randy Graves:
Suppose that, instead of being paid directly by the local church, pastors were paid by the conference, with a scale for years of service and merit. The more experience a pastor had, combined with a system for merit-based raises, the more a pastor would be paid -- regardless of where the pastor was appointed. That way, pay would not need to be a consideration in where to appoint the pastor. Next, increase the apportionments to include salary, housing and insurance costs, but those are paid to the conference. All churches that paid 100% of their apportionments would be guaranteed a qualified pastor that is suitable for that church's needs.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Actually, I've never been able to work out all the kinks, such as lazy pastors with tenure...but I think some sort of system like this is what we really need. I always have.
I think that's brilliant! We have many small, but spiritually vibrant churches in my conference who could use more support, and several larger churches who see no need to participate fully because it won't affect them at appointment time -- they pay well...
All churches that paid 100% of their apportionments would be guaranteed a qualified pastor that is suitable for that church's needs.
Would that mean that churches that struggle with paying apportionments would be punished by getting sub-standard leadership and thus continue in the downward spiral instead of getting someone better who could actually help? I think it is the hurting churches that need the competent pastors to help heal them and encourage them to grow.
Though I agree with the idea of more equity in salary across the board for the most part.
While I like the idea behind this "rethought," I'm a little concerned at who will be left to decide what counts as a "qualified" pastor.
IMOHO, there are not enough sufficiently qualified and effective pastors in the Central Texas Conference for the Bishop and Cabinet to make such a promise.
For too many years I thought the problem in some conferences was that some pastors receive so MUCH compensation. I'm more inclined to think now that the problem is that some pastors receive so LITTLE.
I had heard or been told that in Great Britain, UM pastors are all on the same footing, pay- and appointment-wise. No one makes more than another, and everyone gets a chance, depending on qualifications, to pastor a larger church. True or false? I honestly do not know, and I cannot remember the source.
Michael,
I have also heard that. I heard it from one of the guest lecturers at an event for Probationary Elders held last spring in Nashville. The lecturer, whose name I have forgotten, was British.
It's an idea!
Andy B.
Steve said it very well in questioning who will determine a "qualified" pastor though I have to say that I wonder who determines that now. It seems to me that the system is geared only toward those who have the educational requirements and not much more.
I certainly do not want to take away from anyone who is working hard for a very expensive education (another topic!) but as a part-time local pastor who does not live near a seminary, I cannot go unless I have a full-time appointment. And I cannot get a full-time appointment because I do not have the credentials or the education (yet) to be appointed.
My last DS said that the "good" appointments are saved for ordained elders. So what constitutes "good", and who makes that call? It would be the same ones who have reappointed pastors who should never have been appointed in the first place!
Sorry. I'll get off my soap box now.
I'm just thinking outloud here, but how about assignment by casting lots?
john,
i think it's a great idea, too. i think it would really allow (or at least more so than now) for churches and pastors to be matched according to needs and gifts.
I have often thought this idea has much merit, even going as far as writing a paper about it in Polity class. While I would be the first to admit that it has kinks that need to be worked out, wouldn't it be something if appointments were made on the basis of matching gifts and graces of church and pastor instead of "level of salary"?
How about doing away with the apportionment system? A friend of mine, whose church is notorious for not paying apportionments, pointed out that if the conference merely required pastors to tithe to the conference instead of the local congregations, the amount would more than make up for the apportionments owed each year (not sure if this would work in larger churches or not, but it works in the smaller churches we serve). That would free up some of the income of the churches and help them compensate pastors.
Post a Comment