Simple, obvious solution to modest clergy pay

The churches I have served were different I many ways but were all mature congregations which ranged in age from 96 to almost 200. One could say that they were quite well established. Some might use the dreaded term, "traditional."

In each congregation the history included a time looked upon with great pride when the church "went full time," an event that occurred in the 1950s for each of the three. Prior to that the church shared a pastor with one or more other churches. 'Half-time' and even 'quarter-time' churches were an important part of the Baptist landscape in those days.

A full time church with a full time pastor is great but the pay scales are not. What I read regularly is that seminary trained and educated pastors have difficulty in smaller and average sized SBC churches. Whatever the expectations of compensation for an MDiv pastor, the reality is determined by the size and income of the church. A smaller church translates into lower pay regardless of the education level of the pastor, regardless of the student debt of the pastor, regardless of the number of children of the pastor, regardless of what the pastor could make with equivalent education in a secular job.

So what is this simple, obvious solution?

Going bi-vocational, of course. 

The average annual salary of a bi-vocational pastor in the SBC is about $20,000. That plus a 'real' job adds up to a decent income. Churches benefit by not having the pressure to provide a minimal living wage to a pastor and family and pastors benefit by having a job for his primary income and the church as supplemental income.  

So, why not solve pay problems with churches and pastors going back to part time ministry as bi-vocational ministers?

I can only think of a couple of problems with this:  (1) the church does not want to do it, and (2) the pastor does not want to do it. Other than those, I'm thinking it is a slam dunk, done deal. Unfortunately, both groups seem to consider this a backward, regressive move.

My humble hacker and plodder opinion is that this would be a very good move. A little secret in SBC clergy life is that 'full time' pastors often envy their bi-vocational colleagues because the latter have a higher degree of independence. Churches with only part time pastors are forced to lower their expectation for pastoral duties and to assume many of these that have been automatically handed over to the preacher, "because that is what we pay him to do." Happier church. Happier minister.

Alas, our system is not conducive to this. Seminaries are expensive and depend on a head count of warm bodies in classrooms for much of their funding. It would be tough to sell an expensive education on the basis that the student would then serve a part time church. Neophyte pastors are taught to look down the road and see larger churches, more prestige, and better pay and are willing to make a short stop in a smaller church even if the pay is parsimonious.

At the recent North American Mission Board church planting conference Jimmy Scroggins led a session entitled, The Math Doesn't Work: Why Bivocational Church Planters are the Future. The thrust of his session was about a deliberate effort to approach church planting by enlisting and training bi-vocational pastors. Why do that? Well, because the math just doesn't work for full time pastors. I liked the concept.

The pay scale math for many average and smaller sized SBC churches with full time pastors doesn't work too well either. But it will work, however poorly, as long as there is a steady stream of churches who provide such and pastors who are willing to accept it.

Only the Lord and current economic realities may force the bi-vocational solution upon some churches and ministers.

....but what do I know. I'm not even a mega pastor.