The 1930s Again . . . Only Different (Part 1)

My father started pastoral ministry as a young adult while World War II raged. Those were austere years for many families, but Dad knew no other way of living. My grandfather had the first combine in Burlington, Oklahoma, a large machine that required 12 horses to pull it through the wheat fields. The Great Depression robbed the family of the farm equipment, then Dust Bowl winds blew away their dreams. So when the first congregation Dad served paid him $10 a week and provided a parsonage for $10 a month, it probably didn’t seem like a sacrifice. The median household income in 1945 was $2,379, so Dad’s compensation in his first pastorate was about 27 percent of the median income at the time. By the time he retired from pastoral ministry more than three decades later, his compensation (salary and parsonage) had risen to almost the median household income for that year.

In 2011, the median income in the United States was $50,054. The federal poverty level for a family of four was $23,050 in 2012. This poverty level is 46 percent of the median income. About 15 percent of households in the United States live below the poverty level. Families with a household income of 185 percent of the poverty level or lower ($42,643 in 2012) are eligible for federal assistance through programs such as reduced or free school lunches and the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program.

I recently conducted a survey of seminary graduates from 2002 to 2012. For 28.6 percent of those who participated in the survey, the compensation from their ministry assignment put them at or below the federal poverty level for a family of four. Almost 64 percent of the respondents fall within the 185 percent range if the ministry assignment was their sole source of income. The percentage of those within the 185 percent range is even higher for women (76.9 percent) and those in a rural/small town (73.8 percent) or urban (68.5 percent) context.

Unlike my parents (Dad rarely worked beyond the pastorate and Mom cared for the family full time), many in ministry today work a second job or the spouse is employed out of financial necessity. These multiple sources increase household income to the point that only 12.6 percent of those responding to the survey are at or below the poverty level. The percentage of those eligible for governmental assistance for such things as school lunches or WIC is 39.6 percent. The household income of 51.7 percent of the women participating in the survey fit this parameter. Respondents at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty level report a higher incidence of discouragement and frustration than those with a household income above that figure.

In the survey, 70.2 percent reported that the pastor’s spouse was employed, most of them out of financial need. Health insurance benefits are provided by the spouse’s employer for 15.6 percent of the respondents.

Almost one in three respondents in congregational ministry also reported employment outside the church for additional income. Of the bivocational pastors, 47.4 percent were sole pastors; 21.1 percent were associate pastors. I was surprised that 10.5 percent of the bivocational pastors were senior pastors with paid staff.

Most of those in bivocational ministry are in an urban context (42.9 percent) rather than suburban (28 percent) or rural/small town (26.2 percent) contexts. I expected bivocational pastors would tend to serve small congregations (65.8 percent of the bivocational pastors serve congregations of 99 or fewer members), but 13.2 percent of bivocational pastors in this survey serve congregations of 250 to 499 members. Of those currently in bivocational ministry, 65.8 percent report not currently doing what they expected when they started seminary study.

Education and social services are the two most frequently identified job classifications for surveyed pastors who work beyond the congregation. Respondents indicated that each week the typical bivocational pastor spends 23 hours (median) in non-pastoral employment and 25 hours (median) in pastoral work. The number of hours in non-pastoral employment exceeds that of pastoral work for those in an urban context (28 and 27) and those whose household income is at 185 percent of the federal poverty level or lower (26 and 25).

For bivocational pastors, health care coverage from non-pastoral employment is higher (26.3 percent) than for those whose coverage is provided by the congregation (21.1 percent). This study reported that 15.8 percent of bivocational pastors do not have health benefits from any source. More than 28 percent of the women in the study indicated they do not have health coverage.

Almost 29 percent of respondents in this survey reported no current contributions to a retirement account. Forty-two percent of the bivocational pastors reported they do not contribute to retirement savings. For all those who responded, 69.5 percent said the value of their retirement account was inadequate for their age.

As I step back and look at this data, it seems like many of those just beginning ministry today live with economic pressure and have little preparation for the financial needs of tomorrow. Almost 40 percent of the respondents reported stress because of student debt. Fortunately, only 16.3 percent reported tension because of consumer debt.

In our next column, I will explore the implications of this data for both pastors and congregations.

Originally published by Pensions & Benefits USA.