Mission or moonlighting?

Do ministers have the same dedication to their mission that they had a generation or so ago? Dedication is a difficult construct to measure, so let's ask the question in concrete terms: Are ministers of today as likely to expend all their time and strength in the work of the church as were those of yesteryear? Or are they tending to devote increasing portions of both to nonministerial activities as a means of supplementing their incomes? In other words, is moonlighting on the rise?

Historical dedication

It is true that in the early days of the Advent message James White cut hay with a hand scythe and worked on the railroad to support his family. But he didn't receive a salary. Our pioneers developed the plan of systematic benevolence specifically to free the ministry from the burden of self-support and its accompanying economic worries. They wanted the church's ministers to be able to give themselves without reserve to the leadership of God's work.

However, two exceptions were permitted. Ministers could accept the small payments they might receive for writing articles for denominational journals. And they could spend up to a day a week doing what was then called colporteuring. Presumably both were considered acceptable alternative means of advancing the church's mission. But by and large the clergy made do with denominational wages. Some knew the pinch of poverty.

How about today? We have no scientific data concerning the proportion of the ministry engaged in moonlighting. Doubtless many still give all of their efforts to the cause. But we have observed and heard about enough cases of ministers pursuing sidelines to know that it is not rare (see accompanying box for further details).

What is pushing Adventist clergy toward moonlighting? Are today's Adventist pastors in a worse economic position than their counterparts of a generation ago? To answer these questions, we compared the financial circumstances of the Adventist minister of 1985 (the most recent year for which figures are available) with those of the minister of 1960.

We found the comparison very difficult to make. Individuals differ greatly in family situations and in personal life styles. A pastoral couple with four children in church-related schools is in a far more precarious situation than a couple with no dependent children, whether the year be 1960 or 1985. Expenses vary, depending on the area of the country in which the minister serves. And compared with the spouse who devotes full time to team ministry or homemaking, the spouse who works at gainful employment makes a world of difference for the family's finances.

In our attempt at a comparison, we assumed, as far as possible, the same circumstances. Our hypothetical pastors are 45 years old, ordained, and at the maximum increment of the wage scale. They have two children, one in academy and one in college. We used the model the church considers ideal: our pastors' wives share their ministry and do not work outside the home. Which pastor was better off, the one who ministered in 1960 or the one who ministered in 1985?

Shrinking income

The first task was to establish comparable incomes. The problem here is that while in 1985 ministers were paid a flat monthly package, in 1960 they received salary and subsidies. The subsidies could vary somewhat, and records of the time are hard to come by. But we believe the following reconstruction to be a fair average.

The weekly salary in 1960 was $82, or approximately $356 per month. Subsidies could amount to 56 percent of salary, or $199. We allowed this maximum, roughly divided as housing, $135; utilities, $16; auto depreciation, $40; and professional expenses, $8.¹ The total monthly compensation, then, could have been as high as $555. This figure does not include educational, medical, and travel allowances, which were based on need and therefore varied widely. Since this was true in 1985 also, we excluded these perquisites from both equations.

The 1985 remuneration is much easier to determine: the package was a flat $l,935per month. If the buying power of the dollar had remained constant, this salary would compare very favorably with the $555 of 1960. But of course it has not. So we had to find some common yardstick for comparison.

We used a scale that translates previous and subsequent currency into 1967 dollars. ² For 1960 the factor is 1.127. Multiplying $555, the minister's monthly income in 1960, by that factor yields its equivalent in 1967 dollars: $625.49. To convert the 1985 salary into 1967 dollars, we must multiply it by the factor 0.311 (actually the 1984 factor, the most recent available). The figure of $1,935 multiplied by 0.311 yields $601.79. In constant dollars the pastor of 1960 is somewhat better off than the one of 1985. The latter earned $601.79 as compared to the former's $625.49, or almost 4 percent less.

The advantage may seem slight; however, the monthly difference of $23.70 equals $76.20 in contemporary dollars (or a total difference of $914-40 for the year), enough to be noticeable.

Increasing expenses

Income alone, however, does not tell the whole story. We next had to ask whether some essential expenses rose more or less rapidly than the general inflation index, thus either widening or narrowing the gap in the economic positions of our two pastors. To deter mine this, we looked at several major budgetary items as percentages of yearly salary. (By multiplying the monthly salaries established above by 12, we arrived at yearly salaries for the 1960 and 1985 ministers of $6,660 and $23,220, respectively.)

Let us first consider housing. In 1960, ministers had to pay 10 percent of base salary, or $35, for rent. In addition, they received a subsidy of up to $135 (all figures rounded to whole dollars). This means they could pay a maximum rent of $170 monthly without dipping into other funds. Most ministers stayed within that figure, and we will allow the maximum, or $2,040, per year. This is 30.6 percent of yearly salary. (Remember that in establishing the figure for the salary we added in the subsidies, including that for housing.)

In 1985 rents varied greatly, depending upon the area. For a three-bedroom, single-family dwelling we found rates from $300 to $1,200. We will assume a $550 average,, which seems fair for a suitable dwelling in most of the country. This comes to a yearly rent of $6,600, or 28.4 percent of yearly salary. So the modem renter may be slightly better off if the family can indeed find suit able housing for the figure indicated.

Buying a house is another story. The rapid escalation of home prices in the 1970s outstripped both inflation and rent. In 1960 the average price of a new house was $13,800, or 207 percent of the pastor's yearly salary. ³

By 1984 it had risen to $80,600, or 347 percent of the current salary. ⁴ No attempt has been made to translate these figures into monthly payments because of variations in type of mortgage, down payment, length of loan, and rate of interest. It does seem evident, though, that it was much easier to buy a home on the 1960 salary than on the 1985 one.

Another key area is the cost of an automobile. Personal choice plays a large role here, but let us assume that our pastors need family-sized cars. Models come and go, but we have discovered three in this category that have been produced continuously since 1960: Ford Thunderbird, Buick LeSabre, and Pontiac Bonneville. While pastors of either era may have chosen something more modest, by comparing the prices of these cars in 1960 and 1985 we can make a relative comparison of the general cost of cars for these two periods.

The average of their 1960 prices is $3,673.⁵ This equals 55 percent of the yearly salary of the pastor of that time.

The average price of these three cars today is $14,767, or 64 percent of the yearly salary. These figures are based on the list prices of automobiles for sale on dealers' lots with the usual factory-selected optional .equipment. Neither price takes into account discounts secured by bargaining. Nor, because of the variety of payment plans and interest rates, did we attempt to calculate actual payments.

It is evident that the pastor of today will pay a larger share of his income for transportation. It is true that his car will not be equipped comparably to that of the pastor of 1960 today's cars have many standard features that were only options or not even available then. Yet one must admit that it will certainly cost more for today's pastors to live in the same relative position with their culture.

For an Adventist worker, the cost of educating children in Christian schools is a major financial consideration. Here's what we discovered when we perused bulletins from a typical boarding academy.

In 1960 a year cost a total of approximately $600 $340 for tuition and $260 for room and board. The conference educational subsidy was 50 percent of, tuition, or $170. The pastor, then, had to come up with $430, or 6.5 percent of his yearly income. If his child worked 15 hours a week for the 36 weeks of the school year at the then-minimum wage of $1 per hour, he or she could earn $540. In other words, the pastor would have no bill to pay.

By 1985 the total cost had risen to $5,450 $3,580 for tuition, $1,795 for room and board, and $75 for registration. The conference subsidy had been increased to 60 percent of tuition, or $2,148, leaving a balance of $3,302. This is 14.2 percent of the 1985 income (compared with 6.5 percent in 1960).

But there is more bad news. If the student works the same 540 hours at the current minimum wage of $3.35 per hour, she or he will earn only $1,809, leaving a bill of $1,493 in 1985 as compared with a credit for 1960. Of course, some students would have worked more or fewer hours, and some in both periods would have earned more than the minimum wage. But the comparisons should be valid.

Calculations of the cost of college yield similar results. In 1960 the total cost minus subsidy was $880, or 13.2 percent of yearly income. In 1985 it was $5,479, or 23.6 percent of yearly income. If the 1960 student earned $540, only $340 remained for the pastor to pay 5 percent of his income. If the 1985 student earned $1,809, $3,670 still remained 15.8 percent of the pastor's yearly income.

It is true that sources of financial aid exist today that were not available in 1960. However, for people in the socioeconomic class of our pastors, most of this aid is in the form of low-interest loans that must be repaid, adding to their future financial burdens. Thus the cost of Christian education stands as a major disadvantage to the minister of 1985 vis-a-vis the parson of 1960.

One other major expense deserves mention payments into the Social Security fund. Back in 1960 self-employed persons were taxed 4.5 percent of their earned income for Social Security. Pastors may well have paid nothing, since the fund had first been opened to clergy only five years before and was still elective. But in 1968, with the exception of those who objected on grounds of conscience, ministers were required to participate in the plan. By 1985 the proportion of income the Social Security tax takes had risen to 11.8 percent (12.3 percent in 1986). Since this is paid "off the top," before any deductions, it constitutes a tremendous increase in the burden on ministers of 1985 as compared to their counterparts in 1960.

In summary, then, in comparable dollars ministers today earn somewhat less than did those of 1960. And they face far heavier expenses in the areas of home ownership, transportation, Christian education for their children, and participation in the Social Security plan.

Faced with this shrinking sustenance, what do pastors do? Perhaps the more common solution is to depend on the income of a working spouse. While we do not oppose the right of ministerial spouses to choose to enter the labor market, to make this a necessary condition of pastoral employment seems to give a low priority to family life and to reduce greatly opportunities for the type of team ministry that has proved effective in church leadership.

Apparently, many other ministers are devoting a portion of their time to supplementing their salaries. This dilutes their energy and dedication and would appear to be detrimental to the mission of the church.

Some suggestions

Given the rather shaky financial condition of the majority of our conferences, ways of dealing with this situation are not easy to come by. We have attempted to highlight the problem. We believe that the church should create a blue-ribbon commission to address it. For starters, however, we will offer a few suggestions.

1. Make the elimination of all moon lighting by both conference officials and pastors a condition of employment. How ever difficult it may be, we must find other answers to their financial problems. God's work is so sacred and so important that it deserves the undivided attention of its leaders. Moonlighting is a trend that, if continued, will eventually destroy the very heart of our mission.

2. Provide ministers more assistance in financing a Christian education for their children. It is the family with several students in Adventist schools that is feeling the economic crunch most heavily. We understand that this problem is under consideration.

3. Adjust travel budgets and telephone allowances to the configuration of pastoral districts. Some pastors (especially in large-city, one-church districts) and some conference officials are able to use part of their budgets as income, while others have to dip into personal funds to adequately perform their ministries.

4. Provide help with Social Security payments. While the denomination pays half the tax for all the rest of its employees, it pays nothing for its ordained ministers. They must make the whole payment themselves. At 12.3 percent of their gross income and going to at least 14 percent the burden is becoming intolerable. Some ministers have chosen the exemption provision, but this is not ethical or even legal. The Internal Revenue Code (Section 1402, e. 13011) clearly states that ministers filing for exemption must "belong to a recognized religious group that is opposed to insurance" and "must be conscientiously opposed to accepting the benefits of any public or private insurance." So Adventist ministers have no option. Yet in reality they are no more self-employed than are other church employees. Even though it would be expensive, fairness demands a change in this church policy that dates from the days when ministers were not covered by Social Security.

5. Provide a better system of remuneration for those wives who choose to join with their husbands in a true team ministry. There's enough counsel from Ellen White recommending this to fill another article. Some conferences have experimented with this plan, but it needs to be a much more viable option. This approach could help balance the family budget while at the same time strengthening the outreach of the local church.

We have come through a period when opportunities for professional ministry were limited, and many of our youth have chosen other options. We are now approaching a time when good ministers will be scarce. As a church, we need to elevate the ministry to a position of respect and honor. We need to attract and hold the very best talent in the rising generation. While income must never be the prime consideration in a choice for the ministry, we must ensure that the profession is economically viable in the society in which ministers must live and serve.