Housing Allowance
From Bill Easum
The issue of housing allowance has come up several times lately. I know this can be a very touchy subject but still I want to comment on it.
My wife and I lived in a parsonage our entire local church ministry. Neither of us liked it. I never asked for a housing allowance because I knew that it was less expensive for the church to own the house than to give a housing allowance and I wanted all the money I could get for mission. Over the years the mortgage on a parsonage doesn't go up, but housing allowances go up over time. So I think parsonages are better than a housing allowance because it allows for more money to go to mission rather than property.
The other issue is owning a home has the potential to become a nightmare unless you plan on staying at that church forever. Just think what might happen if you moved and couldn't sell the house. I just don't think ministry should ever be tied to property, whether its mine or the churches.
Now the other side of the issue.
If a parsonage is provided, churches should provide an adequate parsonage and make sure it is kept up and that the church respects the privacy of those living in it. Many times this is the rub- churches let the parsonage get run down or they treat it like it is theirs and try to control what happens in it.
Pros of parsonage allowance
-the family gets to live in something they choose and like
-the family builds up equity
-the family is free from all interference of the congregation
Cons of parsonage allowance
-costs the church more money over time
-less money is available for mission in the smaller church
-makes it harder for the pastor to change churches
-can be a financial nightmare when moving if can't sell the house for a long time
-in some areas the clergy family may not be able to afford a house in same part of town due to the price of housing
The one thing my wife and I did while pastoring was take the money that most people would have to spend out of their salary for a house or rent and built a house for our retirement down the road. We did that 20 before I left the local church. It was one of the best things we ever did.
Here is what you have to realize (and most pastors don’t)- the average household income in the U.S. is still around $55,000. Out of that families have to pay for everything including their home or rent. The average household income for clergy families is above that since many of the spouses work outside the home (the average clergy salary alone is around $40,000). (I don’t have the exact figures at hand. if anyone has them it would be interesting to see what they are). When you add a parsonage on to the package, the average household income for clergy is above the national average so the average clergy family could afford to begin working toward owning their own home for the future (they could even rent it until they need it). On top of that ALL of the money a clergy spends on a home is totally deductible from their taxes, making the actual net income of a clergy family much higher than the average household income in the U.S.
So I would like to leave you with two thoughts: One, we should always ask "What is best for the mission- spending more money on property or on mission?" Two, the average clergy family isn't as bad off financially as they think they are.
These are just my thoughts on the issue. They certainly aren't the Gospel. I don't mean to offend but to cause everyone to think.
Response
P.s email talked about the manse and Chuck added comments worth noting re: churches that “cannot afford” a housing allowance
I would recommend to any pastor that whenever a manse is provided he/she should seek some kind of equity allowance as an additional item in the salary. Many congregations are letting go of their parsonages and if a pastor moves from a church that has one to a church that does not, it may be very difficult to come up with the down payment. In addition, many homeowners enjoy the benefits of selling their home upon retirement. Manse/parsonage-dwellers do not have that opportunity. I’m adding below a paragraph from the ELCA regarding their guidelines for equity allowances. Hope this is helpful to those who face this kind of situation:
It is suggested that an equity allowance be provided if a pastor or associate in ministry lives in a congregation-owned home. The equity allowance provides the financial resources for a professional leader to purchase housing, whether during his/her active ministry or upon retirement, when a parsonage will no longer be available. When the pastor lives in a parsonage, it is the congregation that is enjoying any equity buildup in that home, not the pastor or AiM. When the person leaves the parsonage, there is no equity with which to finance new housing.
Thus, congregations with parsonages are encouraged to provide an equity allowance plan to share with the pastor or associate in ministry that buildup in the value of the parsonage. A suggested equity allowance might be:
A. An amount equal to 3% of the pastor's or AIM's defined compensation. (Base salary plus 30%).
B. A split of the increased value of the parsonage from year to year. Since it is wise for a congregation to have an annual property appraisal for insurance purposes, this increase in value is easily determined.
In paying the equity allowance to the pastor or AIM, it is helpful for the congregation to pay directly to a tax deferred plan which delays the income tax due until the funds are actually withdrawn for use. If the congregation wishes to setup an equity allowance plan, a resolution to be adopted by the congregation if the investment vehicle is other than the ELCA Optional Pension Plan is shown below
From Bill Easum
folks, do you see what is happening? We all talk about and deplore the effects of Modernity on the church but when it some to us we can't see what is happening? All of a sudden the issue of Calling has turned into a conversation about parsonages and equity. All of this smacks of Modernity and the clergy/laity class system. Don't you see it?
I know this is a touchy subject, but where is the mission in all of this? Can the mission ever be tied to housing or where a spouse lives or how what schools our children go to, or what grade they are in at school?
Where is the cross that we are suppose to take up and follow? Where is the obedience and submission to a journey of faith?
Sometimes we have to make our decisions purely on the call of the mission. Boy that is hard. I know that from experience. Years of labor with no payback, but in time things worked out for us. And it can for all of you. But not if you put ANYTHING before the mission.
Sometime ago I did a survey of some pastors. I asked them the following question "What if anything do you put before the mission?" The responses were telling. Those who had more than three or more things on their list were usually in dying or plateaued congregations. Those who had two or three things on their list were usually in thriving congregations. Those will less than two were in remarkable ministries.
What were the things listed before the Mission? Here they are in order
1. family
2. health
These where the only two that surfaced on a regular basis.
Fruit for thought?
From Tom Bandy
Housing is a key issue related to why people do not go into clergy-ministry, or why clergy drop out of ministry, and the advice here is helpful.
But I do want to add a cautionary note. The whole discussion about clergy housing needs to be reframed for the context of missiology and away from ecclesiology. The clergy person's housing is not simply a personal or family matter. It is a missional decision, just like every other tactic as personal lifestyle and calling merge. The underlying question should be: "What kind of housing will best help me (the mission leader) accomplish the mission to which I am called ... for both the short and long term?"
It might be, for example, that regardless of the personal comfort and financial security dreams of the clergy and family, the best missional decision about housing is for the clergy to live in a rented apartment in the urban core, rather than own their home and commute from the suburbs.
Tom Bandy
Response
Am understanding you correctly? It sounds like you are saying that marriage covenants are less important and that personal health should not be a high priority. I think I must be misunderstanding you comments. I think mission is lived out in those areas of life, a blend if you will, to make our response to God’s mission all the stronger.
From Bill Easum
nope, I saying that in the survey these where the only things that came before the Mission of those pastors who were pastoring thriving churches. I agree with your statement about living it out. My point was that housing was never on the list
From Tome Bandy
Let me try to explain further ... this is a point we often come back to especially among North American established church leaders.
Yes, it is true that as lifestyle and mission merge, personal and family health are part of the mission. God surely wants you to be faithful to marriage and sustain your holistic health.
BUT ... under the guise of claiming that personal and family well being are part of the overall mission, in actual practice we see North American, career-oriented clergy again and again opting to protect personal and family comfort zones over mission risk. We see that all the time ... and as North American churches have identified clergy with other forms of professionalism, this practice of choosing personal and family health over mission risk is actually encouraged by seminaries and denominations.
Personally, I would be delighted if clergy elevated mission to co-equal priority with personal and family health. But despite all the rhetoric, that is precisely what you often do not see.
From Tom Bandy
Friends:
The issue is not home ownership ... its flexibility. The housing allowance allows mission driven leaders to flexibly choose and change their mode of living to make them more effective in the mission field.
But here is the challenge ... too often home ownership encourages complacency (just as property ownership for churches encourages complacency), and clergy protect their homes in the same way as churches protect their buildings. Sacred cows are sacred cows, wherever they graze.
Congregations with property need to be challenged by mission ... clergy with property need to be challenged by mission.
Response
Friends,
"Prophets and artists tend to be liminal and marginal people, 'edge[people],' who strive with a passionate sincerity to rid themselves of the clichés associated with status incumbency and role-playing and to enter into vital relations with other [people] in fact or imagination."
Victor Turner, "Liminality and Communitas"
Keep it missional, keep it Christ-centered, keep it scripturally sound.
1 Timothy 5:17 – 18: The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."
Determine what the role is for a leader – point leader or otherwise – what level and intensity of focus and sole dedication to the role the mission requires – and then partner up to determine what “treading out the grain” unmuzzled looks like. For example, if you have a point leader who can’t house, feed, and educate their children adequately, they are muzzled. If a key leader is in a bad way, upside down, financially or otherwise, partner with them – devise a strategy to get them in a good way, right side up, otherwise they are muzzled.
Use principle, integrity, uncommon sense, missional focus and the spirit of Jesus to figure out: how do we set that ox loose? Then find a way to do it. God has enough money.