Sorry, but that MDiv is not a paying investment

LifeWay and Baptist Press do a good job this time of the year in researching and writing about clergy salaries. BP's story about pastor salaries not keeping pace with inflation is a good example. As churches prepare budgets for the coming year, information about clergy pay is helpful.

According to LifeWay's 2014 Clergy Compensation Survey, pay and pay package increases for full-time senior pastors are going up at a rate less than the rate of inflation. This means that as a group, senior pastors are slightly losing ground relative to the cost of goods of services. Any senior pastor who finds a way to direct his church deacons, personnel, or finance committee to the LifeWay study and/or to this Baptist Press article is doing a good thing. Church people should be informed about such things. It may or may not help, but if the pastor doesn't take some initiative to inform key people in his church they will likely never have the relevant facts to make good decisions.

But I was drawn to another figure given in the BP piece:

Seminary graduates receive, on average, $1,981 more in total compensation than non-seminary graduates and receive more vacation days.

Less than $2,000 more for an MDiv? (I realize that the survey did not distinguish among the various seminary degrees but MDiv is the standard pastoral degree offered by all the seminaries.)

Let's see. You leave a paying job to attend one of the seminaries where you invest somewhere around $25,000 in tuition alone during the three years needed to acquire an Masters of Divinity degree. During that period most students continue to work but suffer the loss of significantly more income than they would have received if they continued in their secular job not to mention expenses related to moving and traveling, etc.

At the successful completion of a seminary education the minister has a shiny new masters degree which enables him to land a larger church with higher income prospects for his pastoral career.

You bet. On average, an extra $1,981 year after year-after-year.

Impressive?

Not exactly.

Do the math. Financially, it doesn't pay brethren. Most will never recover from where he would have been had they not sought to acquire that MDiv. But then, at least theoretically as a better educated pastor, he is a better pastor which is a worthy goal, finances aside, not to mention that following God's will is always a sound investment.

But considering the future of the Christian ministry in America - declining church membership numbers, reduced personal giving rates, and increasing economic marginality of average-sized and smaller SBC churches - maybe it's time to consider that a three year MDiv and the expenses thereof might be excessive.

Is a two-year MDiv program worth considering? I think so.

New wrinkle to the Cooperative Program

South Carolina Baptists are doing something that ought to raise at lease a single eyebrow around the Southern Baptist Convention. 

They are taking a significant portion of their Cooperative Program receipts from the churches and sending it directly to the International Mission Board thereby bypassing the Executive Committee, all of the seminaries, the North American Mission Board, and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

I am unaware of any other state convention taking this course.

The Baptist Courier has the story, carried here by Baptist Press:

S.C. Baptists increase direct giving to IMB

The direct allocation to the IMB was boosted from $400,263 to $583,768, while the amount of Cooperative Program funds to be forwarded to the Southern Baptist Convention remained unchanged at $11,685,000.

State conventions are autonomous, just like churches, and may direct their funding any way they wish but if they choose to take the traditional route of taking Cooperative Program receipts, keeping a portion for in-state use (the SCBC keeps about 59%, below the average for state conventions across the SBC), and forwarding the remainder to the Executive Committee, the International Mission Board would receive 50.2% of that amount.

A simple way to express this is to say that the SCBC gives about 5% of their SBC allocation directly to the IMB, that portion not being diminished by funds taken for the seminaries, Executive Committee, NAMB or the ERLC.

Another way to understand this is to realize that with direct giving the SCBC is multiplying their support of international mission by simply routing the $573,768 directly to Richmond. Under the usual CP allocation formula for SC and the SBC, SC Baptist churches would have to give about $2.8 million to the CP to net that much for the IMB. 

What the SCBC is saying is that International Missions has higher priority in their CP allocation and they are taking steps to accelerate IMB support.

I like the concept.

The Cooperative Program is our main channel for missions support, a mammoth funding engine. Here is what I see happening:

1. Churches are giving less of their offering to the CP. This is a trend a generation and a half long.
2. State conventions are moving to keep less of the CP dollar in their states. This trend was initiated mainly by the Great Commission Resurgence report. Many state conventions are making tentative moves from keeping 60% or more of the CP dollar to a 50/50 split. This is a very slow process that only marginally helps the IMB.
3.  State conventions giving directly to the mission agencies, bypassing the Executive Committee, seminaries, etc. So far as I am aware, only South Carolina is doing this but if other states follow it would be quite significant and sufficient to be felt, mainly by the seminaries and NAMB who lose potential funding in this process.

SBC life is interesting these days. There are few firm ground rules.

Having formerly served in SC, I am familiar with things there but I do not recall hearing any reaction from SC Baptists on this nor can I find any discussion of it. I'm curious if there was any reaction.

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.

Getting serious about missions: SC Bapt Conv directly funds IMB

The many state conventions held their annual meetings, most last month, and Baptist Press reported on their actions. Following the Great Commission Resugence process and report, many of the states took action to increase their support of International Missions but I don't recall reading of any state convention that took the action the South Carolina Baptist Convention took.

S.C. Baptists to send more to int'l missions

The SCBC voted to "increase South Carolina Baptists' contribution to the International Mission Board by nearly 22 percent over the next three years and to move the SCBC toward a 50/50 split of Cooperative Program receipts with the Southern Baptist Convention over the next five years."

That in itself is significant because the SCBC voted to cut programs to free up money to decrease the proportion of Cooperative Program money kept in South Carolina. Many of the state conventions have voted to move toward a 50/50 split but with the caveat that it will happen only if churches increase CP giving to the state. It appears that the SCBC voted to move toward a 50/50 split without assiging the churches the blame if giving does not increase and therefore they cannot move to 50/50.

But back to the SCBC taking action that no other state has taken. What would that be?

The South Carolina Baptist Convention added a line item in their SCBC budget for the IMB. That is, they voted to send some of the SBC part of their CP monies directly to the International Mission Board, cutting out the Executive Committee, the six seminaries, the North American Mission Board, and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

I don't recall this happening on the state convention level.

Churches do this every year through the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions. Some churches even budget for IMB gifts that don't go through the Cooperative Program, thereby assuring that 100% of that money gets to the IMB rather than the 20% or so that would if they gave through the CP. State conventions haven't taken this route, until now, so far as I am aware.

Granted, the amount isn't a lot, about $400,000 or about 7% of what the IMB receives through the indirect (Executive Committee) channel. The SCBC is saying, "Sorry, Frank Page, you don't get to handle this money and cut it in half before you send it to the IMB."

If Southern Baptists want to get more money to the IMB and then to international missions then this is the route that will make that happen. I have little confidence that the sprawling SBC and state convention institutional structures will ever be significantly cut and savings applied to NAMB and IMB.

I spent 15 years as a pastor in SC and recall that the SCBC was moving towards a 50/50 split 25 years ago. They didn't move much. It looks like they are moving now. Good for them.

[If any readers are in SC I would appreciate your perspective and any corrections to what I have said here. It is possible that I am missing some material facts that are buried in the details of your GCR actions. Thanks.]

Greatest SBC Challenge? How about Calvinism?

The SBC Today blog did an interview with our Number One Southern Baptist, the titular head of the SBC in the 363 days the convention is not in session - Frank Page, chairman of the SBC's Executive Committee.

The first question asked Page what he thought were the greatest challenges facing the SBC. The first challenge named by Page in his response was...Calvinism.

Here is the relevant part of the interview:

SBC Today: What do you think are the greatest challenges facing the SBC?

Frank Page: I think the challenges confronting the SBC today are different than they have been in decades past. I think one of the issues which is a tremendous challenge for us is the theological divide of Calvinism and non-Calvinism. Everyone is aware of this, but few want to talk about this in public. The reason is obvious. It is deeply divisive in many situations and is disconcerting in others. At some point we are going to see the challenges which are ensuing from this divide become even more problematic for us. I regularly receive communications from churches who are struggling over this issue.

Surprised?

It's not as if Page doesn't have an array of other challenges to the SBC from which to choose: The Cooperative Program is dropping like a rock. The North American Mission Board is undergoing substantial changes. The Great Commission Resurgence has stirred up the convention a good bit.
But Page's mind goes first to the issue of Calvinism in the SBC when asked about challenges.

Interesting.

I have been wary of calvinists for some time because of what I have seen and heard - churches being split and destroyed by agressive calvinist pastors. Here in Georgia one prominent church has even gone as far as defunding SBC institutions that are too calvinist. I recognize some problems.

But is Calvinism at the top of the list of challenges? I don't know. But Page certainly has my attention here. Maybe he ought to be the one to start talking about it.

The inherent flaw in the Cooperative Program

As noted yesterday, the percentage of church offering plate receipts given to our primary denominational funding mechanism, the venerable and emminently sensible Cooperative Program, has been dropping consistently, relentlessly, and depressingly for decades - from the the dizzying level above 11% in 1978 to less than 6% in 2009.

If Coca-Cola lost about half of its market share, shareholders would force the CEO out. Executive heads would roll, advertising agencies would be fired. The corporation would do just about anything that would restore market share.

Not so the SBC. We just keep rolling along. Market share down? Let's wring our hands, wail loudly, and lament that fact but then why don't we just create a new metric, Great Commission Giving, that acknowledges that churches are eschewing the CP for direct funding? If we do that we can have a number that might actually increase.

Can you see the future Baptist Press headline? "Cooperative Program funding down but Great Commission Giving is up!"

The SBC and the states have a dozens of intelligent, skilled, resourceful, committed, and knowledgable employees whose responsibility includes the promotion of the CP. The SBC has had numerous high profile, blue ribbon commissions and task forces who were charged with studying the Cooperative Program, its promotion, and its allocation formula. The stewardship brain trust meets, studies, laments, decides, and acts...and the percentages continue to decline.

So I ask: Is there an inherent problem, a flaw, in the Cooperative Program that contributes to its sad march downward?

I think that there is such a flaw and it is the most obvious and self-evident characteristic of our grand giving scheme:

It is virtually impossible to significantly change the formulas for distributing Cooperative Program receipts from the churches.

I offer as evidence the following:

1. In the past half-century the percent of Cooperative Program monies that state conventions have kept has moved within the extremely narrow range of between 61 and 67 percent. When all Southern Baptists were happy and harmonious, states kept around two-thirds. When Baptist were feuding and fussing, states kept around two-thirds. When times were good states kept around two-thirds. In times of recession, states kept around two-thirds.

Some state conventions are declaring a move to a 50/50 split. Good, but let's be honest here. First, 50/50 doesn't mean they keep only half. Second, we've heard this before and there are a thousand caveats and loopholes in that commitment. States may move to three-fifths but I'm not optimistic about seeing them make it to 50/50. There is simply too much self interest.

2. The SBC Allocation Budget is virtually unassailable: The International Mission Board will get about half; the North American Mission Board will get a little under a fourth; and the seminaries will get a little over one-fifth. That's the way it is. That's the way it has been. That's the way it is going to be, forevermore.

We recently went through the most significant upheaval since the Conservative Resurgence and wrested a magnificent additional...zero point two percent...for the IMB.

Any questions?

The billions of lost people outside North America notwithstanding, does any sentient Southern Baptist think that NAMB will get less than 22%?

The most visible SBC leaders are seminary presidents (Patterson, Akin, Mohler). Does anyone think that the six seminaries will bear any percentage cuts? Does anyone think we will close a seminary? Merge two or three of them? Even if we did, good Southern Baptist money says that the presidents and trustees will still want the same percentages.

And when heaven and earth fade away, the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention will release the next year's CP Allocation Budget. It will look essentially like the previous year.

The inherent flaw in the Cooperative Program makes it simple: Southern Baptists options are limited to tweaking the CP allocation formula and trying to increase the entire CP pie. So, we tweak and hope.

But here's a tip for those tweaking and hoping: Churches have power. They get to choose. They are choosing to give less to the CP.

Too bad.

Frank Page's One Percent Solution

Lost in the highly increased internet SBC talk on a possibility of a potential unnamed name change for the Southern Baptist Convention is another action taken by our Executive Committee.

Baptist Press reports on XComm President Frank Page's challenge to churches to give another 1% to the Cooperative Program.

The recommendation from the EC's Cooperative Program subcommittee asked executive directors of the 42 Southern Baptist state conventions to "encourage their churches to give 1% more to the Cooperative Program in support of the Executive Committee president's 1% Challenge, and in doing so, further enhance God's work worldwide."

The challenge does what baptist leaders do best at the higher denominational levels - talk about big pictures, big numbers, and big dreams.

EC members in Nashville watched a video showing that a 1 percent-of-budget increase in Cooperative Program giving from SBC churches would add $100 million to CP. The video explained that in 2010, Southern Baptist Convention churches gave an average of 5.8 percent to the Cooperative Program, totaling about $500 million. If Southern Baptist churches gave 6.8 percent, that total would be nearly $600 million.

Get the picture here. To reverse the three decade long slide in Cooperative Program giving - churches have steadily, relentlessly, given less and less of their offering plate dollars to the CP going back to the 1970s - leaders push for the churches to "just" tack on that additional one percent.

Note what is asked here. Not a one percent increase in a church's CP gift (if in 2010 10,000 was given, then give 10,100 in 2011) but increase the percentage of the entire church budget (if that $10k was 5% of undesignated offerings in 2010, then give 6% or another $2,000 in 2011.

As these things go, we get le grande "IF" after this: IF churches just tack on that extra 1% THEN we can have an extra $100 million for convention use. That would translate into: 380 more missionaries and 16,000 more seminary students.

The Plodder principle might be invoked here: If a frog had wings he could fly.

Here's an alternative proposal: Squeeze $100m out of state conventions, the six seminaries, NAMB, and IMB. THAT proposal is emminently doable.

This is the same giving plan we hear often, we have heard since the beginning: You churches just give us more money.

If SBC churches had an additional $100,000,000 what would WE want done with the money?

Would we want about $65,000,000 to stay in state, mostly the southern states? No.

Would we want only $20,000,000 of it to go to the International Mission Board? No.

Would we want only $10,000,000 or so to go to the North American Mission Board? No.

I like Frank Page and give him credit. He has reduced his budget at the XComm in favor of more to international missions. His CP giving record as a pastor was stellar.

But we are now in the second decade of the third milleninum since Christ walked this earth. We are approaching two centuries of the SBC and one of the CP. The CP has declined for decades.

This one percent solution is a retread. It is an old, tired, and flaccid idea. While some will adopt it, the overall CP needle will not be moved.

We need some fresh, new, radical ideas for funding missions.

BTW, we had announced back in February
a new "consortium" of CP promotion specialists. Are they now tied to the oldest of old stewardship promotion programs: 'just give more'?

I hope not but it looks like they are. Too bad.
________________
Plodder admits to pessimism here, but such as is called for based on our history. I would be happy to receive a more optimistic view of the potential efficacy of the 1% solution.