Another Voice on the 2014 Board of Pension Proposal – Jan Edmiston

I believe in The Call.

I still believe that the Holy Spirit leads pastors and congregations to find each other through the call process of my denomination, the PCUSA. The truth, however, is that – in these anxious days when so much has shifted for The Institutional Church – Pastor Nominating Committees are monumentally aware of their financial limitations. The sky is not the limit in terms of what they can offer their potential new pastor. In fact, in my role working with the Commission on Ministry on Presbytery Staff, I have personally observed many search committees wringing their hands over compensating a new pastor in light of increasing Presbytery minimum salaries, Board of Pension dues, Social Security offsets, and other benefits.

While healthy congregations long to call the right person who will lead their faith community into the next chapter of their ministry together, cheaper is almost always considered better. Among the comments I have overheard via meetings, email, and phone conversations:

• “We won’t have to pay moving expenses if we call someone local.” (This means they will probably call the person who won’t have to move rather than the person who is currently living in another state, even if that local pastor is not their first choice.)
• “We can save money by eliminating the Associate Pastor position and calling the position a Director of Youth Ministry or Pastoral Care.” (This means they don’t have to pay the Presbytery minimum plus benefits to the new staffer who might actually have an MDiv degree and be ordained.)
• “We can hire a part-time pastor and get more than our money’s worth.” (This means that they recognize how hard it is for a 10 or 20 hour per week pastor to do much more than preach and moderate Session, but they will push the limits and try for a little more visitation, teaching, and counseling hours.)
• “We can hire a clergy couple for a single position and get two for the price of one.” (This means they will expect more than what a single pastor can offer, but pay for one pastor.)

So, here’s what I see happening if the Board of Pensions votes to reduce dues across the board from 21% to 19% but only cover dependents at 65%, leaving the rest of the cost for churches and/or pastors to cover. Young pastors with spouses and/or children means more costs to churches and so anxious congregations will choose another way. They will call middle-aged empty nesters or single pastors or older pastors on the cusp of retirement.

This will be deadly for the future of our denomination. And I’m telling you, I have no doubt that, if this passes, I will find myself sitting – one day soon – with an anxious PNC as they decide between a young pastor with dependents and an older pastor with no dependents – and they will go with the one with no dependents – not because she was more creative or energetic, not because he was a stronger leader or a more visionary preacher.

They will go with the less expensive choice. The problem is that this choice might be dramatically more expensive in the long run.

Editor’s Note: The Board of Pensions announced on February 11, 2013, that they are postponing the vote on changes to the Medical Plan to their June meeting. Here is their announcement. Posts in this conversation were composed before this announcement; writers encourage continued attention to the decision-making process moving toward a vote in June 2013.

The Rev. Dr. Jan Edmiston is the Interim Associate Executive Presbyter for Ministry in the Presbytery of Chicago.