Online Archives

FROM THE EDITOR

by Erik Alsgaard

I hope you'll read the story that starts on page one on the results of a clergy survey conducted in the past few years by the Baltimore-Washington Conference's Commission on the Status and Role of Women, or COSROW. The survey asked several important questions, including how much money clergy earn, how they felt about the pastoral moves they've made, and other items.

The story I wrote on the survey's results doesn't really paint the whole picture. It couldn't; there's not enough space.

The report, which will be made available in full at a later date, has some very important information, especially on the differences between how much a female pastor earns versus how much a male pastor earns. The gap is telling. Even accounting for how long a pastor has served their congregation, women earn less than men. Sometimes, a lot less.

And while this sadly reflects society in general, the question must be asked: Should the church be like this? The answer is easy. No, it should not.

Easier said than done, I'm afraid.

In my ministerial journey (I don't use the term 'ministerial career,' it's an oxymoron), I was, for four years, part of a great experiment in salary equalization.

The General Board of Church and Society, based in Washington, D.C., models an interesting idea. Every staff person serving at whatever level earned the exact same amount as everyone else at that level.

When I served there, from 1998 to 2001, my salary was the same as everybody else at the same level I was at.

In other words, I, as an assistant general secretary, earned the exact same amount of money as every other assistant general secretary - regardless of how long the other people had been in the job; regardless if you were man or woman, lay or clergy, you got paid the same, across the board.

When I mentioned that to friends and colleagues, both clergy and laity, the reactions were interesting to witness.

To a person, the initial reaction was shock.

'You earned the same?' they would say in (almost) mock horror. 'Where is the incentive to do well? How do you determine raises? Isn't the idea that you work hard and get paid more because of the work you do?'

And then we would talk. The conversations almost always gave me an opportunity to talk about my understanding of calling, of being in ministry not for the bucks but by the grace of God.

Some would simply shake their heads and call me something just short of a fool. Some would nod their heads in agreement and wonder why the church doesn't do this same kind of thing on a larger scale. And then, in the next breath, they'd say, 'It would never work.'

Umm, sorry. It already does. Kind of.

In Great Britain, as I understand it, Methodist clergy are paid the same. I am told that there are some small 'bonuses' for people serving in leadership positions, or some pittance added for longevity of service, but by and large, all clergy get paid the same: men and women; small church or large church; urban or rural.

I can hear the screaming already from my brothers and sisters on this side of the pond. 'Don't bring that idea over here.' It already is, right in our own backyard.

In the Baltimore-Washington Conference, we have nine districts. Each district has a superintendent. Each superintendent receives exactly the same compensation.

You can't tell me that each district is the same, or requires the same amount of 'work,' or 'ministry,' or however else you want to define sameness. And yet, each superintendent's compensation is the same. Yes, sure, some have a housing allowance and some live in a parsonage, but in the end, the total compensation is the same. Interesting idea, no?

I'm not sure what the next steps should be in seeking to bring equalization for clergy compensation. I just know that I want something done about it.

I recall that attempts have been made at General Conference to enact legislation that would set clergy salaries the same across the board. It failed miserably. Something about the American ideal of making more money the harder you work stood in the way; something about the ideal of making more money the 'higher up' you go on the ladder of 'success' stopped the idea dead in its tracks.

Far be it from me to say that these 'American ideal' ideas are wrong or bad. After all, I enjoy getting more money, don't you? And I don't see any clergy ? me included ? standing in line to return last year's raises (if you got one).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we should pay clergy less than they are paid today. Across the board, men and women clergy, as educated professional practitioners of ministry, are underpaid. If anything, their compensation should be increased.

So maybe the idea of equal salary across the board is a bad idea. Maybe it's too drastic a measure. Maybe we clergy truly are a product of our American culture, motivated by money more than the desire to serve God. God help us if that's true.