New York Times Series Exposes Differences between Charities and Churches
For the past few weeks, the New York Times (www.nytimes.com) have been exposing a series of loopholes between taxes churches don’t pay and charities have to pay and today between the salary and housing allowance clergy receive and charity workers do not (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/business/11religious.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=login). This is a tender area since not all staff at a church qualify and the disparity is often thoughtlessly explained–often with capricious results.
This is a good article that explains how OUTSIDERS view our perquisites and it is helpful. My own opinion is that as individual churches divide this perq among their staff it should be done sparingly and transparently. I feel that this practice should be eliminated for reasons that it is unecessary given the modern and historically high pay given to clergy. While I was on staff at Billy Graham we all were not considered clergy, though we performed many of the same functions that the IRS lists as qualifying activities (preaching, teaching, counseling, etc.). I found this to be liberating since it eliminated any exterior motivation or pressure or disparity among christian workers.
Within a country where one church will give a housing allowance for someone who simply leads prayer in service, while another will only give it to ordained staff and even another who will only give it to male members of their staff, this problem is ripe for abuse–in fact it is abused currently.
Informative post. Thank you very much!
Right now, I’m a non-ordained youth director. My church provides a simple but rent-free apartment on the church grounds. However, I’m pretty sure that a couple years down the road, my wife and I will begin to want kids. And there’s no way I’ll be able to move out of that apartment, and stay on staff at this church in this town without securing ordination and the tax-exempt housing allowance that comes with it. The hope is for the church to green-light bringing me on as a 1st-ever Associate Pastor, and my duties will expand beyond just youth ministry to make it worth their money.
I’m no expert on clergy salary trends, but I’m not so sure that I’d call the pay rates “historically high.” Sure, if you work for Joel Osteen or Billy Graham or Mark Driscoll or Rob Bell or James Draper or those other heavy hitters with large congregations, yeah, you’ll do fine. I think the norm, however, is a pretty mid-level –dare I say humble– rate. Our current pastor is an interim (slightly lower salary than permanent), and she can afford to do it only because her husband is the main breadwinner with a successful jewelry store.
So what about the little guys, the clergy of small mainline churches that are passionate about Christ but just don’t have huge budgets? Especially those of us that are situated in small and beautiful but pricey mountain towns (I’m in Durango, CO). The only way they will be able to retain full-time clergy is with the government’s help.
I’m all for equity between churches and other non-profits. And I know it sounds selfish, but I don’t want my employment prospects trimmed back to make that happen!
Grace & Peace to you-
Russell Duren
Dir. of Youth Ministries
1st Presbyterian Church of Durango
There’s some interesting points the article raises. I’ve brought up in my own church the disparity in how this “benefit” is applied along gender lines.
On the other hand, the pastors are viewed as self employed and we are responsible to pay our own social security contributions– all 15%. For me anyhow this expense and the housing allowances are nearly a wash.