One of the things I have been proud of since becoming a Presbyterian, being ordained, and becoming a participant in our Board of Pensions is the community nature of our benefits plan. All churches participate in the plan, even when they are between pastors, and all installed pastors and their families are covered by the plan. Congregations pay based on the salary they offer, not the health or needs of the pastor. It’s that simple; we share. We share in the cost and we share in the benefits. It’s a concrete example of connectionism and true community. The proposal being brought before the Board of Directors of the Board of Pensions in March erodes our community nature. It does precisely what we’ve been stridently avoiding; the cost of participation in the medical benefits will be based on need rather than the level of compensation.
This is a huge injustice for married pastors, particularly those with families. Pastor’s salaries are typically low to begin with. It’s not unusual for a pastor’s family to qualify for WIC, food stamps or fall dangerously close to the poverty line. The deductibles and co-pays of the medical plan are already a hardship on pastors and their families. Now we are looking to add to that an additional $2,500 or $5,000 a year to cover their family’s medical care? Sure, some congregations and some presbyteries will require that health care is provided by the congregation for the whole family … but will PNCs and congregations use the additional costs as reason to pass by younger pastors with families? will their salaries be less in order to cover the additional health care expenses?
I understand that congregations are find the health care portion of the their BoP dues to be burdensome. And I understand that the PCUSA health care expenses are unusually skewed because of the age and health of most pastors and their families. These are issues, however that need to be addressed in some other way. For instance? Is there a way to open the Affiliated Health Care plan to all Presbyterians, not just pastors and congregational employees? Would this ultimately be a benefit to our members? would it make a difference in the age/health demographics in a way that would bring the costs for all down?
I understand that charging employees for family health coverage is typical in corporate America. Maybe, then, we need to take a more active role in helping our country address the rising health care costs for everyone … not just pass those costs on to those who can least afford them. What’s happening among us Presbyterians has been happening to our neighbors for years/decades … we need serious conversations around the moral and ethical realities of high profits gained by insurance companies, for-profit hospitals and pharmaceutical companies … something seems wrong here.
Congregations are blown away, I know, by the costs required by presbyteries for pastor’s terms of call. But, I still think that most pastors are underpaid … grossly underpaid. If your pastor’s salary isn’t at or above the salary level of your local public elementary school principle, you’re underpaying. The education and responsibility level of both positions are roughly equivalent, and both are working in the service of their community, not to make a huge income.
If a congregation cannot afford to pay the full salary package of a pastor, then they have to face the truth … they cannot afford a pastor. It’s time to think of other options: increasing their stewardship significantly, changing the staffing patterns of the church, moving to a different location, yoking with another congregation, looking for a part-time pastor, raising up Elders to be commissioned as CRE’s, merging with another congregation, or, dare I say, consider dissolution. When pastors try to hold on to a call by agreeing to salaries less than presbytery minimums, or put their family at risk with no health care, they risk both a dependency on the congregation and a resentfulness of the congregation which hinders their ability to preach the Gospel, lead with authority, love with compassion, and keep the mission of the Church as their priority. This is a problem.
Comments anyone?
Wendy: You’re last paragraph is right on target. Congregations have to face the financial reality of having a well-trained pastor at their beck and call. Some congregations need to acknowledge that they are too small to support a teaching elder (and family); others need to acknowledge that they do not give what they are able to.
Wendy, this is perfect. Thanks for speaking out.
Well said. Thanks for touching a delicate subject.
Sent from my iPhone. Joanne
Agree! Everything about our faith falls apart when we start believing there isn’t enough to go around. First, there is enough to provide for pastors. Secondly, there is also enough to provide for those in need that aren’t even members of our churches.
We just have to trust God to use us to make it happen!!
Leaders of the denomination should be preaching that our God is a God of abundance.
Wendy, we haven’t met yet (hope we will soon!), but I like your post. I also think that one of the problems that is raised with the last paragraph (which I agree with) is that a lot of congregations are in a situation where they need help working through these issues of not being able to afford a FT call anymore (and how to organize it, how to merge, etc., etc.) yet lack the leadership/help of their Presbytery because it is dysfunctional or there is no leadership present there. And some of them really want the help and aren’t getting it and then that compounds the problems we are going to face on this one in figuring out TOC and working with our congregations. That is a worry that is weighing heavily on my mind these days–and something that makes a lot of us feel like we are really hung out to dry on this one and increases the stress.
Wendy, it is even worst for us. I was forced to resign 6 years ago. Bob became too ill to continue as a pastor. He applied for disability from the PCUSA and was denied. They offered cobra coverage at
$1054 a month. No income. I retired for a paltry $566 a month. Bob finally also retired before we were 62. When I hit 62 I got Soc. Sec., a year later so did Bob. We can’t get the supplemental insurance from the PCUSA because we weren’t covered for 6 years. Thankfully I now have Medicare and Bob will in April. The PCUSA hasn’t been helpful. Tell 2nd career people there are real pit falls that may destroy financial well being and most congregations don’t care what harm comes to their clergy.
The Rev. Sue Haseltine
I just posted an article by Cynthia Holder-Rich on this topic on my Facebook page: http://www.ecclesio.com/2013/01/all-things-are-lawful-the-board-of-pensions-and-the-church%E2%80%99s-call-by-cynthia-holder-rich/#comment-2481. Her article and the replies to it raise similar issues of increasing poverty-level pastoral salaries, forcing changes in pastoral demographics, etc. Your suggestion of expanding the insurance base to all Presbyterians is similar to one suggestion made about expanding the base by seeking an ecumenical solution. The answer is in the numbers.
Another important note is that talking among ourselves is not the solution. The only ones with the power to change this proposed policy are the members of the Board of Directors themselves. In this particular aspect of PCUSA polity, they are autonomous:
Since the adoption of the Benefits Plan of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (Minutes, 1986, Part I, p. 55), the Board of Pensions has always had the authority under Article XIX of the Benefits Plan to amend the Medical Plan, “taking into consideration claims experience, administrative expenses, changes in the healthcare industry, and other relevant factors.” The only limitation on that authority is that it must be reported “to the next succeeding General Assembly of the Church” (quotes from the Benefits Plan, Sec 19.3).
The only instance in which the Board must seek approval in advance for dues or a change in coverage actions is with regard to the Pension Plan, specifically “a benefit reduction or a dues increase (which amendments require the approval in advance of the General Assembly of the Church).”
So in order to seek change in what they are recommending (which, as I understand it, has not yet been fully published yet), we must directly address the Directors – en masse. Try p. 3 of http://www.pcusa.org/media/uploads/oga/pdf/members.pdf.
One of Monmouth’s GA commissioners was on the BOP committee at GA. I’m wondering what he might have to say – I’m going to send him the article and reference your blog as well . . . . perhaps you used this at presbytery last night? If so, he was there and heard it.
What really bothers me is that this is not the first nor the only thing about our medical plan that is diametrically opposed to the theological and missional statements of our denomination.
The costs of Medical Insurance is rising. Possibly the Board of Pensions has no other option than what they are proposing. We need to address the issue that some of our congregations are too small to have a full time pastor, and one may not be needed. We need to merge some of the congregations.
In my home town there are 3 PC(USA) Presbyterian Congregations plus a Presbyterian Church in America congregation. Four Congregations in a 20 square mile area. One of the PC(USA) congregation has 1200 members while the others have 200 members or less. Does this make any sense?? Yet no one adresses this matter. Instead we wait until all our resources are gone, endowments are spend down, etc.
It may be nice to think congregations should provide full family insurance coverage. However less companies are doing this and some are charging for the extra family members. Also is it right that we should cover young adult children into their 20’s? Many spouses work outside the church, some full time. This insurance issue may not be as big a problem now as it would have been 20 years ago.
George, I trust that you’re not assuming the 1200 member church should just subsume the 3 smaller congregations as a matter of numbers. I do worry about the wasted ministry money spent on maintaining buildings, and I do worry about the inappropriate sentiment that ties congregations to “the church mom was married in” well beyond that congregation’s viable life span. However, not every small congregation is unhealthy and not every small congregation is a bad investment. Many have special ministries, special characteristics, and many could be well served by a tent-maker, a part-time pastor, or a CRE (CLP).
What this discussion is dealing with, however, is whether the tail is wagging the dog. Is the denomination going to allow changes in its ordered ministries (new BOO terminology) to be accomplished by the decisions of a Board of Directors with limitless power? Or is the denomination going to begin to deal with the realities of “Changing Church — Changing World” in a creative, positive, called way and then guide the BOP into solutions that reflect our theology and ecclesiology?
Thanks for your thoughtful post. Well done!