The immediate goal of coming to terms is to make certain everybody understands the arrangement—the same arrangement. The long-term goal is to be able to work together happily for years to come.
—Ed Bratcher
By the time a search committee makes their selection and the pastoral candidate has agreed, in theory at least, to come to a church, a long process has been concluded. At this point, however, a shorter but equally vital process is about to begin. It’s time to talk about the terms of call.
Throughout the interview process, committee and candidate have each expressed their ideas and concerns. As they’ve come closer and closer to an agreement, they’ve made more and more assumptions based on what they’ve learned about each other. Coming to terms is, in part, the process of transforming those assumptions into assurances.
When we get to this point, we feel we’re talking with friends. We’ve come to know the search committee during the “courtship” period. These good people represent the congregation we expect to pastor soon. So we naturally want this coming to terms to feel more like a family discussion than a union bargaining session.
The immediate goal is to make certain everybody understands the arrangement—the same arrangement. The long-term goal is to be able to work together happily for years to come. Here are some things I kept in mind during this crucial last stage of the candidating process.
Some Friendly Business
Often the committee initiates this process and goes through the terms of the call as they understand them. Sometimes, however, we may need to formalize these assumptions ourselves, by saying something like, “For both of our sakes, let’s make sure we have this all worked out. I need to know your expectations for this call, and you probably want to know mine. Could we work through some items about the call?” The point is: make sure the process is begun.
However initiated, I like this meeting to be conducted in a businesslike manner while retaining a friendly atmosphere. It works better, for example, when people are comfortably sitting on couches rather than nervously eyeballing one another across a table.
This conversation also works best with the search committee, rather than a personnel committee or church board, which are usually relatively unfamiliar with us as candidates. The search committee has been our primary contact with the church. They ought to be the ones who work out the arrangements with us. In situations in which the search committee’s authority is limited, the committee can at least take the arrangements to the official board for approval or negotiation.
If we ask for unusual or extraordinary considerations, however, another committee should be brought in. For example, if the previous pastor received significantly less salary than the committee proposes I receive, I’d suggest, “Since this amount is decidedly more than what you had originally considered, it might be good for us to talk to the finance committee.” We want to be sure the search committee has the full support of the congregation.
Avoiding the Adversarial
Since we want to begin our relationship with a congregation on a warm, nonadversarial tone, it’s a mistake, I feel, to enter discussions with dogmatic expectations.
Rather than declaring my needs, I liked to begin the talks by asking for information. For instance, say I’m talking about continuing education opportunities. Instead of declaring, “I must have two weeks continuing education and $500 per year,” I would ask the committee, “What has been your previous experience with continuing education?”
This is especially important when the church has had a bad experience in the area being discussed. If, in the example above, the previous pastor had used continuing education to sit on a Florida beach, the church would naturally be reticent about study leaves.
But when I ask, “What do you think about continuing education?” the committee can relate their bad experience. Then I can remain sensitive to their concerns, saying, for instance, “I certainly can see why a continuing education leave has left a bad taste in your mouths. But let me say why I consider study leave important and what I intend to do with any time you might give me.”
This approach isn’t aggressive, but it does allow me to get my concerns on the table. If I feel continuing education is crucial for my development as a minister, I’m setting myself up for disappointment and anger if I don’t bring it up. It’s like marrying and then trying to iron out differences over whether or not to have children. It doesn’t work. After I become their pastor shouldn’t be the first time they hear about my strong desire for continuing education.
In short, I approach this part of these negotiations neither dogmatically nor passively, but like this: “Here are some of the things important to me, and as we move along in this pastoral relationship, let’s continue to talk about them. I trust you to do the right thing.” Even if I have to give on some points, I leave open the possibility of further consideration down the road.
A related problem to avoid is entering the discussion with a long and detailed list of expectations. I’ve heard the counsel, “You’re borrowing trouble if you don’t make your needs known in a detailed and specific way. You and the church need to know exactly what to expect from each another.” That’s true to a certain extent, since there’s no use obfuscating arrangements that need to be clear. But when it’s taken too far, trust is undermined, and only a binding contract remains.
This is more likely to happen when one of the parties has been burned previously. Having had difficulties with their previous pastor, one church detailed to the point of absurdity the covenant with their next pastor. It contained pages of regulations such as: “The pastor will be present for and take a leadership role in Vacation Bible School,” spelling out one by one all the duties their previous pastor had neglected.
Pastors who have been hurt are tempted to do the same thing. But that’s not the way to begin a relationship amicably. It’s fighting old wars with people we intend to be our allies.
Some Details We Do Need
While we don’t want too detailed or dogmatic a list, we do want to achieve clarity and understanding as we come to terms. What details, other than reimbursement, we want to put into writing depends on our unique concerns. But one example will suggest that some fine details need to be ironed out ahead of time, because surprises down the road rarely are pleasant.
Let’s say I move to a new church soon after Easter, not an unusual time for a pastoral transition. Arriving at the new church in April, I don’t have many weeks before the kids are out of school, and it’s time for a family vacation. But since I’ve been at the church only a couple of months, can I take a vacation that summer?
I need to bring up that possibility as part of the negotiations before I’m officially called to the church. Some churches don’t allow a vacation until after twelve months of service. I don’t want to learn that after our station wagon has been packed for the beach.
When coming to terms it’s better to say to the committee, “Our family has made plans to spend two weeks at the beach in July. This is important to us, but I’ll have been at the church only three months by then. Would there be any problem with my taking that time away?”
So a few details need attention. We should assume nothing about those things that are important to us.
Remuneration Ruminations
Central to the terms of call is remuneration. But before getting into details, we should be aware of the many factors that determine remuneration.
For example, the previous pastor’s salary often sets limits on how much the church is willing to pay the new minister, at least at the beginning of his or her pastorate.
Then again, what other ministers earn can be a greater factor still. Although one congregation I served had been financially gracious to me, they found that after I left, the salary I’d been given didn’t match what pastors candidating for the position were receiving. Finally the search committee had to approach the congregation, saying, “Folks, we won’t be able to talk seriously with the kind of pastor we want based on what we paid Ed.” The church agreed and raised the salary package.
Churches sometimes set the pastor’s salary close to the mean or median salary in the congregation, thinking the pastor should live on the level of the average member. Another rule of thumb is to look at the pay of comparable professionals in the community, such as a high school principal, for example.
Naturally, the size and budget of a church also sets limits on what churches, no matter how well intentioned, can realistically afford.
Two factors to be weighed carefully are first, the needs of the pastor (size of family, children in college, etc.), and second, the compensation of other pastors of similar churches in the community. Earnings vary considerably by denomination and by church, but I like to make people aware of what other local congregations are paying.
Finally, although most congregations have determined more or less what they’ll pay a pastor, the search committee and candidate can apportion the dollars within the pay package. Creative and personalized distribution of the gross pay can satisfy both the church’s desire to be fair but thrifty, and the pastor’s need to maximize the utility of the gross pay.
A Package of Many Parts
To see how, in fact, pay can be apportioned, let’s look at four major components of a salary package.
• Salary. It’s important for laypeople that we keep salary distinct from reimbursements and benefits. Laypeople often look at the total budget for the pastor (which usually includes reimbursements such as car allowance, benefits such as pension dues and health insurance, but does not include self-employment social security tax), divide it by twelve, and compare that figure with their own monthly take-home pay. Of course, we come out looking overpaid.
Salary is what we must live on. Therefore the salary portion of our pay package needs to remain distinct from reimbursements for expenses we accrue by doing ministry: mileage costs for hospital calls, long-distance church calls from home, dinner out with the guest evangelist, and so on. Salary is what we’re paid; reimbursements pay us back for costs that ought not come from our pockets.
In most churches, our salary figure is tied closely to our housing figure, because the two categories together constitute what is salary for nonclergy. When a congregation does not provide us a parsonage, it’s not uncommon for pastors to divide the total salary into portions for salary and housing allowance that best fit their needs. The cost to the church remains the same, but our tax advantages can be significant.
While talking salary, it’s a good idea to make clear when and how salary reviews will take place. Will they be yearly? What criteria will be used? Who initiates the review, and who will conduct it? Since living costs continue to rise yearly, some provision for regular salary review is important.
We don’t have to pin down a church to specific details about the salary review, such as expected percentages. But we can show we expect people to treat us equitably year by year.
• Housing. Two arrangements are common: (a) a house (parsonage) provided free by the congregation, or (b) a housing allowance paid to us to secure housing of our choice. Since the value of the parsonage or the money given in a housing allowance is not taxable for income tax purposes (although it is for self-employment taxes), the provision of housing is, in effect, an income-tax-free segment of our salary. We pastors gain a great benefit from this provision, and we are wise to convert as much as possible of our salary/housing payment into housing, given, of course, the limitations placed by the IRS.
If paid a housing allowance, generally we are wise to make the allowance large enough to cover expenses for buying (or renting) a residence, furnishing it, maintaining it, paying for utilities, and even purchasing cleaning or maintenance supplies for it. If necessary, we’re ahead if we give up a little salary to obtain a larger housing allowance, as long as we can justify the housing allowance to the IRS. In fact, when determining the housing allowance (or other tax-related items), it’s wise to check with a tax accountant knowledgeable about clergy taxes.
A person just getting started in ministry may find a parsonage the better plan. First, that may make possible a somewhat larger cash salary. Second, the pastor can move right in, rather than search for a home during the hectic relocation time. Most often, the church pays for the utilities or provides a utility allowance for the pastor.
If pastors use a parsonage, they need to make clear with the committee which responsibilities are the pastor’s and which the church’s. Specifically, can we decorate the parsonage, or do we need permission for any changes? Who pays for redecoration? Who fixes a leaky faucet, and do we need someone’s approval to call a plumber? Who pays the utilities? These kinds of agreements are important, because pastors sometimes have found themselves in hot water, so to speak, by not knowing the standard procedure.
One distinct disadvantage of a parsonage, however, is that upon retirement the pastor won’t have equity in a home. One way to remedy that situation is for the parsonage-dwelling pastor to request that money be set aside each month for a housing fund that he or she will receive at retirement.
An Episcopal rector I knew in Manassas worked an agreement with his congregation whereby they contributed $125 a month and he added from his pay another $100 a month to a Tax-Sheltered Annuity in his name, so that by retirement he will have built a fund toward purchasing his own home. He has since been called to another congregation, but the annuity went with him and will be available when he retires. He and his new church can continue to build the annuity, if they so choose.
• Benefits. Although not exactly pay, benefits certainly enhance the pay package and often add up to a significant percentage of actual salary and housing. Therefore, it’s a good policy to discuss exactly which benefits will be provided by the church. The possibilities are considerable:
—Retirement plan. Retirement has a way of sneaking up on a pastor, and it’s never too early to get started on retirement planning. For the most part, churches want their pastors to be well cared for in retirement, and many denominations and associations encourage churches and pastors to participate in pension plans. My denomination, for instance, suggests setting aside 10 percent of income in their retirement plan.
The government recently has encouraged personal retirement investment through Tax-Sheltered Annuities, known as 403(b) plans, for employees of nonprofit organizations. In these plans the employer deducts money from salary and deposits it directly into an annuity. So it is good to talk with the search committee to see if this plan can be made available. Any portion of our salary thus taken from our pay to be saved for retirement is not taxable until we start withdrawing it upon retirement, so we save on current taxes while preparing for retirement.
—Health insurance. This is practically a must in today’s world. If the church doesn’t provide it as a benefit, most of us will find it necessary to pay for it out of pocket. If we can get it included as a benefit (even if we have to give up a little salary to do so), we may be able to save a little on taxes, depending on how exactly we itemize our deductions.
— Disability insurance. I consider disability coverage tremendously important. Since it often isn’t automatically included in a pay package, it’s well worth negotiating.
When I was a pastor in Austin, Texas, a local pastor of a smaller congregation fell down some stairs at his church and was left paralyzed. He didn’t have disability insurance, but the church wanted to be fair with him, so they continued his salary for many months. Finally, however, they needed to call another pastor, and they couldn’t afford the salary of two pastors. It became a tragic, no-win situation.
—Life insurance. Term life and mortgage insurance don’t cost a congregation much and can give a lot of peace of mind. I recommend looking into them as benefits. Regular life insurance, which is more of a personal investment, is something I’ve taken care of personally.
• Expense accounts. I feel the cost of doing ministry ought to be borne by the church. Therefore, we need to make clear with the search committee just which expenses will be picked up by the congregation—and how payment will be made.
Under today’s tax laws, generally it is beneficial for pastors to voucher professional expenses and be reimbursed by the church, rather than receive from the church a set allowance and then pay one’s own expenses from the allowance. As long as we document carefully our expenses under the first system, the IRS considers our expenses and reimbursements a “wash.” But if we receive a set allowance, we’ll end up paying taxes on the portion of it we cannot deduct as professional expenses.
For this reason, I recommend setting up with the church a system for presenting documented expenses (who, what, when, ministry purpose, etc.) and being reimbursed by the treasurer. That way the church—not you—foots the bill for genuine costs of your doing ministry, and you don’t pay taxes on the part of your money that goes toward paying professional expenses.
Here are some expenses you may want to discuss with the committee:
— Transportation costs. According to the IRS, commuting costs aren’t professional expenses, so we can’t expect reimbursement for driving to and from church. But as pastors, we use a car to do visitation, make hospital calls, attend meetings, and drive for youth events. That mileage adds up, and most churches are willing to foot the bill.
A car allowance is one way churches can repay us for our expenses, but tax experts recommend against it, since we must pay taxes on a portion of it. Two other systems require a little record keeping yet fully reimburse our expenses. Under the first system, we keep a log of our ministry miles and get reimbursed on a per-mile basis, currently 26 cents a mile. The second system demands that we keep track of our actual expenses (gas, repairs, depreciation, insurance, etc.) and our ministry and personal mileage; then we submit a request for reimbursement for the ministry proportion of our expenses. That plan has worked best for me, mainly because of the depreciation schedule.
—Continuing education. Many churches want to encourage the professional development of their pastor, so they budget money each year to cover the pastor’s costs for attending seminars and meetings. Some churches even put aside money yearly to fund a sabbatical for the pastor.
—Books and periodicals. Building a good library costs money. Churches may want to help pay these professional costs through a book account from which we can draw to purchase commentaries and other tools of the trade. Again, a vouchered account has the best tax advantages.
—Other expenses. Pastors accrue other expenses in the course of ministry. When my wife and I had to take a guest minister and his wife to dinner, it could easily cost forty dollars. Or when I took the Manassas church secretaries to lunch for Secretaries’ Week, it got expensive to pick up the tab. Other pastors join Rotary Club as a community ministry for the church. If churches are to cover these costs, it needs to be agreed upon in advance.
—Moving expenses. The costs of a move are considerable, and although some can be deducted from taxes, that deduction doesn’t begin to cover the costs. Churches most often will make arrangements to help substantially with the move, but we can’t just assume that.
Also, how the move is made is important. Are we expected to move ourselves, with help unloading at our new community? Do we hire professional movers and bill the church? Will the church pick up the costs of a professional move, up to a certain dollar figure? These questions need to be ironed out. And since most movers require a substantial deposit, how that is to be paid must also be decided.
Delineating Other Agreements
Other questions that have little to do with money need answers. Most of these questions revolve around working arrangements. Consider the following:
• Job description. A pastor’s job is nearly impossible to put on paper. How do you chart a pastor’s vision? Yet a general statement of the responsibilities of the job can help formalize what both parties consider important.
For instance, pastors need to know to whom they are answerable and whom they supervise. That’s basic. In my church in Waynesboro, I knew the minister of music and youth supervised the organist, and the minister of education supervised the custodian. But the church secretary reported directly to me, as did the financial secretary. Knowing these formal relationships helped me as I began pastoring that church; I didn’t accidentally step on another supervisor’s toes.
Any pastor entering a unique position or who expects to minister in ways out of the ordinary ought to have the particulars spelled out in a job description. I know of a Church of God pastor who feels his primary call is to be an evangelist, so his job description makes clear that he won’t be responsible for some typical pastoral duties, such as crisis counseling. That church has made other arrangements to cover that area. Since it’s clearly spelled out in the job description and everybody agrees, it hasn’t caused a problem.
• Performance reviews and termination. Many pastors are suspicious of performance reviews. Sometimes it seems that churches perform reviews only when people are critical of the pastor. Furthermore, pastors feel few people are qualified to review their work. But I found reviews a helpful process. I felt that if I was going to have an effective ministry, I needed to hear how my ministry was being received.
Therefore, I found it helpful at least yearly to talk with the board of deacons about (1) what had been most meaningful to them in the church in the last year, and (2) what they would like to see happen in the church. Pastors are wise to work out some system of review in the terms of call.
Forced termination has become more common these days, and that makes it important for us to be acquainted with the church’s policy for termination. Some churches have no such policy, and in that case, it may be a good idea eventually to place something in the bylaws.
It is not uncommon for the termination policies to stipulate the notice that should be given by either party wanting to terminate the pastoral agreement. Other matters such as continued use of the parsonage, salary continuation, and references often are covered.
• Vacation and study leave. I like to have a clear understanding about the number of vacation days I am given each year. Since pastors’ weeks evolve differently from other professionals, vacation days can become confusing. For instance, what does “four weeks of vacation” mean? Twenty-eight days in a row? Four Sundays plus twenty-four other assorted days away? Should I take it all at once, or am I expected to spread it out a little? These things can be cleared up in discussion with the search committee.
Likewise, study leave for continuing education needs to be agreed upon. Many churches recognize the validity of time away for concerted study and even encourage it. But not all churches, so I need to know which kind of church I’m coming to. And can I accumulate study leave for a few years and take a major break? Can I accumulate the continuing education allowance, if there is one?
And how about a sabbatical? The beginning of the relationship is often the easiest time to request a sabbatical. After all, it remains six or seven years in the future. It’s easy to grant when it’s so far away!
• Other considerations. Pastors often have idiosyncratic needs that ought to be discussed. Perhaps the pastor doesn’t want his children in the local school district, so he won’t be living particularly close to the church. Or maybe a pastor wants to write, which might take some time away from the local ministry. During one period, I was interested in pastor-church relations and sometimes taught classes in seminary or spoke at conferences. I wanted my church to know that. These individual requests and needs ought to come out in the open. It’s better to get permission early on than later to have to seek forgiveness.
Another consideration is the involvement of the spouse, if the pastor is married. The view that the spouse is an unpaid associate pastor is dying a slow death in the church, yet most pastoral spouses today prefer to set their own level of involvement. And many choose or need to be employed outside the home. Knowing the church’s mind on such issues is important as we start a ministry.
For instance, my wife preferred not to attend Sunday school at my last church, and some people found that difficult to accept, although she was active in many other areas of church life. I had made it clear in the interview, however, that I hoped Marjie would be treated no differently than any other church member, and the search committee had concurred with me. Thus, although we didn’t convince some church members, we had only minimal trouble with her decision.
Continuing the Discussion
In the churches I’ve served, I’ve asked the search committee not to dissolve until I’ve been in the church a year. These people were my first and most significant contacts with the church. I’ve known pastors who felt abandoned in the new church after the search committee disbanded, but I enjoyed a group of people who helped ease me into the culture of the church as well as tackle problems I faced.
Upon assuming my duties in one church, I discovered, to my surprise, that the church had some serious financial problems. I hadn’t been told of that possibility by the search committee. So I went to them and said, “Now, I understood the church to be in good financial shape. I’m beginning to get another picture from the finance committee. Help me out. Did I understand you wrong?”
It turned out the committee was also surprised by our difficulties. The finance committee, wanting not to disturb the congregation during a crucial time, had kept the problems to themselves until they had a new pastor. Calling the committee together to clear up the question kept me from feeling betrayed by them.
In another instance, though, I was the one who had failed to hear something the search committee had said. But in any case, it was valuable to be able to go back to the committee I knew best to work out such misunderstandings.
And that, finally, is the point of coming to terms tactfully yet honestly. We want to avoid misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and major conflicts. We want to set up a framework that allows us to work well together for years to come.
Copyright © 1991 by Christianity Today
