Churches Keeping Secrets
It was interesting to read the uproar last week about the salary Manhattan's famous Riverside Church offered its new pastor. The church is infamous in evangelical circles for its pastors that have stretched evangelical tenets to their breaking point--Harry Emerson Fosdick in the 30's and 40's, William Sloane Coffin in the 70's and 80's. It started as a Baptist church but its membership policies were broadened in the 1930's. Today, Riverside describes itself as "interdenominational" and is formally associated with the United Church of Christ and American Baptist Convention.
Some members of the church are upset that they were unaware that this historically congregational church offered its new Senior Pastor a compensation package that far exceeded the previous pastor, James Forbes.
What I find interesting is Juan Gonzalez's description of the brouhaha in an piece he wrote for the Daily News. He cited one long-time member of Riverside who said that Congregational churches "have complete transparency on finances." Apparently finishing this member's thought, Gonzalez quipped, "Baptist churches, on the other hand, tend to keep vital information among key church leaders."
In other words, the controversy over how much information the members of Riverside had about the pastor's compensation package was presented as the result of a tension resulting from Riverside's mixture of Baptist and Congregational church governments.
This is interesting for two reasons. One, matters of church polity rarely make secular news. Two, the last I checked, Baptist churches are congregational in their polity and, therefore, see the congregation, under Christ, as the final authority.
In any event, this outrageous story does raise the issue of how and when to turn to the congregation. It can be hard for faithful pastors and church leaders to know how much to share and when. It can be difficult to know what ought to be brought to a vote and what ought to be entrusted to church leaders to manage. As a new pastor, I'm constantly balancing the important need to lead and provide direction with the just-as-important need to equip and encourage members of the congregation to exercise their congregational duties.
Pastors and church leaders, do you feel a tension here? How have you resolved it?
I don't necessarily think all things need to go to a vote, but I absoulutely think all things, particularly with a pastor's salary compensation - and money in general - need to be out in the open. What's the benefit from keeping it secret?
Posted by: Brian | Apr 29, 2009 2:00:00 PM
First, i hope that they get this fixed and resolved as this doesn't give the church a very good name to the world. Money should never be an issue in a Church of Jesus.
Second, there must be transparency in the Chruch as this reinforces TRUST of the people to their shepherd. Without transparency, we might lose trust.
Thrid, we are a small church and pastor's salary is really not an issue. in fact we're encouraged to give more to the pastor as Pastors deserve a double portiona dn the Bible says you need to share all things with your instructor.
Posted by: Mikes@Your Daily Word | Apr 30, 2009 5:44:21 AM
Aaron,
Thank you for this post. I’ve struggled with this in our church as well. We are Baptist, and therefore seek to maintain a congregational polity; however, there seems to be a fairly wide spectrum in the level of congregationalism that is appropriate. Some view that if a congregation is given the opportunity to vote on a new pastor, that is enough. Others will say that not only should the congregation vote on the new pastor, but they should vote on his compensation package as well. Still others will say not only vote on him, and on his salary, but also on what kind of school his children should attend and what kind of house he should buy and what kind of car he should drive. Clearly there are extremes to avoid.
My search of the scriptures has not unearthed anything that would make this gray area black and white, so I think we must be careful to avoid saying that there is a prescribed “level of congregationalism” in the Bible. Therefore, we have resolved to leave this as a matter of elder discretion. In accordance with our constitution, we vote on the church budget every year, and so in essence, we vote on the compensation for all employees. However, the details of each employee’s compensation are not released unless specifically requested. Our experience is that there is too great a risk for significant damage to the reputation of the church (and consequently the name of Christ), if compensation packages are revealed publicly.
The risk with this approach, admittedly, is that some may view this as trying to hide how much our employees make. If this begins to be a concern for certain members, it is the responsibility of those members to take those grievances to the elder board so that opportunity is given to resolve the concerns Biblically. If this does not occur, then the concerns begin to take on a life of their own, and what is happening at Riverside results. Personally, I think two keys here are maintaining an unwavering commitment to a regenerate church membership, and having a Biblical Eldership that is constitutionally accountable to the congregation. Without those two elements a church can find itself in this kind of maelstrom regardless of how “open” they are with the congregation regarding the staff’s compensation packages. And shame on the church and its leaders who allow that kind of church body discussion to enter the public arena of the court system.
Posted by: Ken | May 1, 2009 9:25:01 AM
Ken... what do you mean by "there is too great a risk for significant damage to the reputation of the church... if compensation packages are revealed publicly"?
I'm a pastor. I'm not sure how I see the reputation of the church I serve in being damaged if the value of my stipend were in the public domain?
Posted by: Andrew | May 1, 2009 2:42:25 PM