Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 10:51:01 GMT -5
I used to wonder how much was a fair share cash contribution to: (1) keep the local workers going and (2)pay for cash expenses for convention.
Based on a number of statistics and anecdotal information, here is an estimate for each of the above.
(1)Supporting local workers.
A reasonable estimate is that a worker needs about $12,000 cash/year for personal expenses and personal travel. Although that is probably more than most receive, it is really an amount that they should get each year to operate freely. There are usually about 100 adult friends/field, so for two workers, that amounts to about $240/adult friend. So the fair share average for a household of two adults should be about $480/year. If you live in a field with more or fewer adults, then that number can be adjusted accordingly.
That means if they visit your home twice/year, passing them about $200-300 each time they come will keep them going nicely.
(2) Contributing to convention
A few years ago, a number of good sources indicated that conventions required at least $35,000 cash to operate. The number is probably a bit larger now with higher food costs, but attendance is also down so $40,000 would be a safe estimate. An average convention has about 450 adult and children attending. So, the fair share for each adult and child would be about $90. That would mean, for round numbers, about $100/adult and $75/child for rough numbers. A family of four would cost about $350. That would likely be on the high, safe side. Because these are "variable expenses", you wouldn't adjust the number up or down based on the size of the convention.
I should state that the $90/person should pay for those who are attending more than one convention. The average of 450/convention is based on unique attendees and does not account for those who attend more than one (minus those who attend none at all/part time). Still, $90/person is pretty reasonable.
Capital expense for convention projects normally come from large donations made to the overseer from generous friends and estates.
The above probably represents one of the lowest cash-costs for any church organization in the world. For a small family to be part of a church system for about $600/year or $50/mo would be completely shocking to members of mainstream churches.
Of course there are other expenses not easily seen or easily evaluated in monetary terms. The cost of hosting a meeting in the home doesn't have a lot of cash cost but there is a lot of personal effort behind it. Conventions require a lot of hours of volunteer work, including workers for many weeks or more at preps. Then there is the "room and board" and personal efforts for the homestay system. These things could be evaluated in equivalent monetary values but the system probably still comes out one of the lowest in mainstream churches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 11:02:39 GMT -5
I used to wonder how much was a fair share cash contribution to: (1) keep the local workers going and (2)pay for cash expenses for convention. Based on a number of statistics and anecdotal information, here is an estimate for each of the above. (1)Supporting local workers. A reasonable estimate is that a worker needs about $12,000 cash/year for personal expenses and personal travel. Although that is probably more than most receive, it is really an amount that they should get each year to operate freely. There are usually about 100 adult friends/field, so for two workers, that amounts to about $240/adult friend. So the fair share average for a household of two adults should be about $480/year. If you live in a field with more or fewer adults, then that number can be adjusted accordingly. That means if they visit your home twice/year, passing them about $200-300 each time they come will keep them going nicely. (2) Contributing to convention A few years ago, a number of good sources indicated that conventions required at least $35,000 cash to operate. The number is probably a bit larger now with higher food costs, but attendance is also down so $40,000 would be a safe estimate. An average convention has about 450 adult and children attending. So, the fair share for each adult and child would be about $90. That would mean, for round numbers, about $100/adult and $75/child for rough numbers. A family of four would cost about $350. That would likely be on the high, safe side. Because these are "variable expenses", you wouldn't adjust the number up or down based on the size of the convention. Capital expense for convention projects normally come from large donations made to the overseer from generous friends and estates. The above probably represents one of the lowest cash-costs for any church organization in the world. For a small family to be part of a church system for about $600/year or $50/mo would be completely shocking to members of mainstream churches. Of course there are other expenses not easily seen or easily evaluated in monetary terms. The cost of hosting a meeting in the home doesn't have a lot of cash cost but there is a lot of personal effort behind it. Conventions require a lot of hours of volunteer work, including workers for many weeks or more at preps. Then there is the "room and board" and personal efforts for the homestay system. These things could be evaluated in equivalent monetary values but the system probably still comes out one of the lowest in mainstream churches. $50 a month might be shocking to denominational mainstream churches who have a large hierarchy to support, but it would not be to the independent churches near me. From what I've seen and heard, they would be happy with $50 a month from me. Very happy. The capital expenditure fund for a church that needs a larger venue is a different story, of course--that would be like our convention capital outlays and improvements. Not sure what Shelter Valley is costing the fellowship, but it would be significant, even with essentially free labor.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jan 7, 2014 11:07:36 GMT -5
LOL. I wonder how some 2x2 families would react to a monthly bill for services after a bad worker visit?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 11:09:43 GMT -5
One thing I've noticed is that 'a friend' is generally paying for a particular worker's smart phone and data plan no matter what field that worker is in. That means some folks are giving more than $50 a month for sure. Lately none of the workers coming to our house have needed our wifi; they had their own air cards. I don't have a problem with this, just wondered if this was a CA thing or if this common elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 11:38:47 GMT -5
One thing I've noticed is that 'a friend' is generally paying for a particular worker's smart phone and data plan no matter what field that worker is in. That means some folks are giving more than $50 a month for sure. Lately none of the workers coming to our house have needed our wifi; they had their own air cards. I don't have a problem with this, just wondered if this was a CA thing or if this common elsewhere. Totally correct. Similarly there is usually a friend who supplies a car which would put them over the average. Some supply a gas card too which would amount to an above-average contribution. So anyone not paying the average shouldn't feel too wracked with guilt. I would be interested in seeing the budget of the independent churches you are mentioning. It's difficult for me to imagine that $50/mo/adult member would pay the bills unless the venue costs are very low. One of our local independent churches might be that cheap as they keep to low cost venues. For a couple of years, they used a school and right now I think they are renting time in another church, which would be beneficial to both church groups. This particular church attracts a lot of young families, some who will be cash-squeezed so it looks like a good system. I have noticed the younger workers starting to not ask for the wifi password, but so far all the older workers do. Monthly smart phone data packages are getting bigger all the time so a worker who doesn't surf the net much can easily set his phone up as a hotspot for his tablet and stay within the limits of a couple of Gigs of data.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 12:26:04 GMT -5
One thing I've noticed is that 'a friend' is generally paying for a particular worker's smart phone and data plan no matter what field that worker is in. That means some folks are giving more than $50 a month for sure. Lately none of the workers coming to our house have needed our wifi; they had their own air cards. I don't have a problem with this, just wondered if this was a CA thing or if this common elsewhere. Totally correct. Similarly there is usually a friend who supplies a car which would put them over the average. Some supply a gas card too which would amount to an above-average contribution. So anyone not paying the average shouldn't feel too wracked with guilt. I would be interested in seeing the budget of the independent churches you are mentioning. It's difficult for me to imagine that $50/mo/adult member would pay the bills unless the venue costs are very low. One of our local independent churches might be that cheap as they keep to low cost venues. For a couple of years, they used a school and right now I think they are renting time in another church, which would be beneficial to both church groups. This particular church attracts a lot of young families, some who will be cash-squeezed so it looks like a good system. I have noticed the younger workers starting to not ask for the wifi password, but so far all the older workers do. Monthly smart phone data packages are getting bigger all the time so a worker who doesn't surf the net much can easily set his phone up as a hotspot for his tablet and stay within the limits of a couple of Gigs of data. CD, these local churches are mostly in rented industrial space, or they are renting time in church with different service times. A few are in old, small churches that have been paid for already. One of the churches is huge (4000 or more), and they built a low-frills industrial building. So the large size congregation, if paying $50 a month, adds up. But I'm sure that some pay way more than that, just like in our fellowship, and that helps. I will pull up the annual report on one and see what I can flesh out. Edited to add: just found the statistic I was looking for. The church I've attended shows that $8 a month per person is required to meet the rental cost for their industrial space. It will go up to $10 person when they move to a larger space as they've grown too big for even two services in the space (500 congregants average).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 12:36:42 GMT -5
What about worker medical dental needs? And ongoing medical expenses if forced from that work?
Yeah, I know if they don't look sick or hurt, they can go find work and pay for themselves. Integrity and fairness, huh? If they have to leave, let them go penniless, teach 'em a lesson, huh? Yeppers, it sure does, and one that gets more expensive and painful as they grow old.
They should have medical/dental insurance rather than trying to foster them off onto often restrictive Governmental assistance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 12:37:16 GMT -5
Totally correct. Similarly there is usually a friend who supplies a car which would put them over the average. Some supply a gas card too which would amount to an above-average contribution. So anyone not paying the average shouldn't feel too wracked with guilt. I would be interested in seeing the budget of the independent churches you are mentioning. It's difficult for me to imagine that $50/mo/adult member would pay the bills unless the venue costs are very low. One of our local independent churches might be that cheap as they keep to low cost venues. For a couple of years, they used a school and right now I think they are renting time in another church, which would be beneficial to both church groups. This particular church attracts a lot of young families, some who will be cash-squeezed so it looks like a good system. I have noticed the younger workers starting to not ask for the wifi password, but so far all the older workers do. Monthly smart phone data packages are getting bigger all the time so a worker who doesn't surf the net much can easily set his phone up as a hotspot for his tablet and stay within the limits of a couple of Gigs of data. CD, these local churches are mostly in rented industrial space, or they are renting time in church with different service times. A few are in old, small churches that have been paid for already. One of the churches is huge (4000 or more), and they built a low-frills industrial building. So the large size congregation, if paying $50 a month, adds up. But I'm sure that some pay way more than that, just like in our fellowship, and that helps. I will pull up the annual report on one and see what I can flesh out. Edited to add: just found the statistic I was looking for. The church I've attended shows that $8 a month per person is required to meet the rental cost for their industrial space. It will go up to $10 person when they move to a larger space as they've grown too big for even two services in the space (500 congregants average). Sounds like they have learned from Costco!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 13:06:48 GMT -5
What about worker medical dental needs? And ongoing medical expenses if forced from that work?
Yeah, I know if they don't look sick or hurt, they can go find work and pay for themselves. Integrity and fairness, huh? If they have to leave, let them go penniless, teach 'em a lesson, huh? Yeppers, it sure does, and one that gets more expensive and painful as they grow old.
They should have medical/dental insurance rather than trying to foster them off onto often restrictive Governmental assistance. In the US, medical expenses, even the cost of medical insurance, is a significant challenge. Throughout the rest of the developed world, there are various forms of universal health care so this is an non-issue in most places. Dental care is not universal in most countries. If the friends were contributing a reasonable amount of cash to workers, most would be able to handle standard maintenance. Most places that I am familiar with, when a worker needs a significant amount of dental work, the overseer pulls it out of the trust funds. That doesn't help though if you are out of the work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 13:51:09 GMT -5
CD, these local churches are mostly in rented industrial space, or they are renting time in church with different service times. A few are in old, small churches that have been paid for already. One of the churches is huge (4000 or more), and they built a low-frills industrial building. So the large size congregation, if paying $50 a month, adds up. But I'm sure that some pay way more than that, just like in our fellowship, and that helps. I will pull up the annual report on one and see what I can flesh out. Edited to add: just found the statistic I was looking for. The church I've attended shows that $8 a month per person is required to meet the rental cost for their industrial space. It will go up to $10 person when they move to a larger space as they've grown too big for even two services in the space (500 congregants average). Sounds like they have learned from Costco! I believe they have! Good analogy. It is interesting, the one with 4000 congregants has three service on Sunday morning, one in the evening, two Sat evening and he preaches on Sunday in between at a school near me. They just don't have enough room to seat more than 800 per service and folks bring their friends. And although I don't like the music, the preaching is solid with a focus on personal sanctification and charitable outreach. Some churches that are growing rent a school space and broadcast the pastor's sermon live from the main campus and there will be an assistant pastor on site to lead the local singing and answer questions, etc. Greg Laurie (harvest crusade) is doing that as his church is way too big now also. Despite being huge, it is a plain building. I think we could have had convention in the first floor and not have needed the balcony. And the whole campus is used every day and each evening; they get their money's worth out of that old stucco!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 14:56:43 GMT -5
Sounds like they have learned from Costco! I believe they have! Good analogy. It is interesting, the one with 4000 congregants has three service on Sunday morning, one in the evening, two Sat evening and he preaches on Sunday in between at a school near me. They just don't have enough room to seat more than 800 per service and folks bring their friends. And although I don't like the music, the preaching is solid with a focus on personal sanctification and charitable outreach. Some churches that are growing rent a school space and broadcast the pastor's sermon live from the main campus and there will be an assistant pastor on site to lead the local singing and answer questions, etc. Greg Laurie (harvest crusade) is doing that as his church is way too big now also. Despite being huge, it is a plain building. I think we could have had convention in the first floor and not have needed the balcony. And the whole campus is used every day and each evening; they get their money's worth out of that old stucco! A congregation of 4000 could easily afford a quality senior pastor and associate pastor. That part would run about $30/year each member although with a congregation that large, a senior pastor would probably make over $100K and there would be more staff than just the associate pastor. Still, $100/year for salaries is about what it would be. The average going rate for a senior pastor these days is over $80,000/year. So if the F&Ws paid the going rate for a senior and an associate, the cost to the average field of 100 adult friends would run over $120,000, depending on the experience of the associate. The salaries would cost each F&W over $1200, or $2400/year ($200/month) for each married couple supporting them. Under that system though, the friends wouldn't have the room and board costs as the pastors would rent their own premises to live in and buy their own food. With that comparison, the friends really benefit by having a ministry group willing to live on subsistence wages/gifts.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jan 7, 2014 16:11:14 GMT -5
I don't know that it is correct that the F&W way is cheaper. It is certainly not less expensive than some of those whose ministers work at other jobs for their livings and provide their own support like the Plyms and some Brethren and even some larger groups in which the ministers follow Paul's example in providing their own support.
Some churches that are thrown up or bought seem very plain and I think maybe the costs of some of the groups with very fancy churches are also overestimated. Some of those buildings were donated or financed by a small group or out of an estate or - in Europe - by governments back in the days of state churches. There is also an economy of time and some fancy churches have continued in use for centuries which makes them very economical when you consider the cost of moving a convention ground or replacing a shed every 30-40 yrs. Maintenance is still a cost but it doesn't have to be much more than is spent on maintaining convention facilities. There is also the consideration of tax breaks that acknowledging and operating above-board as an organization gets a group and those decrease the cost of money donated as well as gets other tax breaks on church property and some other breaks depending on the area. Theres also an economy of scale in some of the fancier churches and you can get big and fancy if you have a big pool of donors without the cost per person going up. I suppose that if people in a congregation wants to pay for more comfortable seats and air conditioning and nice rest rooms and kitchen facilities for events and rooms for study then I see no problem with that.
Renting facilities versus buying them is a wash at best. The rental fee pays for the cost of the owner in buying and maintaining and taxes and insurance plus a bit of profit. It is better than letting a church property sit unused for 11 months of the year but most churches use their properties constantly for religious and educational and social work and some even help pay for them by renting out to other groups and even the F&W's who are subsidizing some of those buildings they criticize. I think maybe the false economy seen in renting is money saved that indicates the very limited outreach and activity and involvement of members and the lack of efforts to help the disadvantaged and the really weird desire to avoid attracting attention that seems opposed to the idea of being a light to the world or a city on a hill.
I seem to recollect that Irvine and Cooney and their associates railed away at the ministry being paid and about their big houses and I wonder if even that was valid because it doesn't seem to be any difference to me how they get paid but that they do get paid and even workers get paid for their ministering even if it is quiet. They wouldn't get that money if they weren't workers. The fancy houses that were being criticized weren't owned by the clergymen anyway and were usually provided by the local land owner or lord. I agree with Dennis that it is a false economy to use national health and old age and similar programs instead of providing their own retirement and health coverage. I don't even think the ministers in other churches can do that. Many established churches also build up an endowment over the years from estates and large donations that the church manages and reports and which helps with expenses and programs. The overseers have also done this for the workers but there is no transparency or means to assure that it is well managed or put to the best uses or that much or any gets back to the individual fields. I'm not even sure that some haven't walked away with the purse at some times so that is another area that cannot be verified.
There are excesses in some churches and I would never want to see that or other abuses but I also don't think it is fair to lump them all together and I don't think the financial benefit of the F&W way is all that great or an excuse for the abuses and tares that sprout in its fertile ground.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jan 7, 2014 16:24:06 GMT -5
I don't give anything. $0. I used to give until I learned that they workers are given estates, and encourage the giving of them, or portions of estates from those the die in the fellowship- all the while preaching that they, the workers, go forth into the work penniless just like in Matthew 10- leaving all of their worldly goods behind. Great. Except what does it say that they take all or a portion of the saints worldly goods when they die? It is a hypocritical message- we go forth in faith- but we need the estates to help pay for conventions and other expenses. The Spirit hasn't moved me to contribute a dime since learning that. I would be happier if the workers would be honest about the finances and open, otherwise I have to assume that they are loaded. Especially since they can turn down help from those that offer it, simply because they don't trust the motives of the offer-er.
Evan Jones is also recorded telling an Australian newspaper that the fellowship was well off financially. Nice. One of the biggest issues with overseer corruption, as I see it, is the financial security that they have. That breaks the friend/worker symbiotic relationship.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 7, 2014 19:05:31 GMT -5
I don't give anything. $0. I used to give until I learned that they workers are given estates, and encourage the giving of them, or portions of estates from those the die in the fellowship- all the while preaching that they, the workers, go forth into the work penniless just like in Matthew 10- leaving all of their worldly goods behind. Great. Except what does it say that they take all or a portion of the saints worldly goods when they die? It is a hypocritical message- we go forth in faith- but we need the estates to help pay for conventions and other expenses. The Spirit hasn't moved me to contribute a dime since learning that. I would be happier if the workers would be honest about the finances and open, otherwise I have to assume that they are loaded. Especially since they can turn down help from those that offer it, simply because they don't trust the motives of the offer-er. Evan Jones is also recorded telling an Australian newspaper that the fellowship was well off financially. Nice. One of the biggest issues with overseer corruption, as I see it, is the financial security that they have. That breaks the friend/worker symbiotic relationship. You know, Sacerdotal, even if the Spirit were not part of the equation, you would be justified in being ethically opposed to contributing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 19:32:57 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 21:26:06 GMT -5
The issue of the trust funds or "kingdom bank accounts" is certainly a gnarly one. Personally, I'm not opposed to having larger funds in existence. There are several problems with it currently though.
One problem is the presentation that the workers have "given up all" and "sacrificed everything" to be in the while the overseer has control of some unknown, presumably large in some places, amount of money. That hypocrisy should be dealt with one way or the other. Either the workers should stop telling people they have given up all for the gospel's sake or the overseer should recuse himself from any authority to use the money and it should be disbursed solely by a consensus of the friends.
Another problem is the secrecy of the amounts. While I don't need to know how much money the overseer of England has, for instance, I would like to know where my own jurisdiction stands, how much is needed in it each year and what future expenses and capital spending is going to arise in the foreseeable future. By knowing this, then I can make an informed decision as to how much or to whom I will contribute money. I would rather contribute in the light rather than in the dark.
Third, the murkiness of the system is pretty much wide open to fraud. We know that fraud has occurred in some places and it is highly unlikely we know even a small portion of it. There needs to be a transparent and accountable system in place not only to minimize the risks of fraud, but to protect the reputations of those overseers and their trustees who are honest but who become guilty by association and inadequate control systems in place.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jan 7, 2014 22:45:11 GMT -5
The issue of the trust funds or "kingdom bank accounts" is certainly a gnarly one. Personally, I'm not opposed to having larger funds in existence. There are several problems with it currently though. One problem is the presentation that the workers have "given up all" and "sacrificed everything" to be in the while the overseer has control of some unknown, presumably large in some places, amount of money. That hypocrisy should be dealt with one way or the other. Either the workers should stop telling people they have given up all for the gospel's sake or the overseer should recuse himself from any authority to use the money and it should be disbursed solely by a consensus of the friends. Another problem is the secrecy of the amounts. While I don't need to know how much money the overseer of England has, for instance, I would like to know where my own jurisdiction stands, how much is needed in it each year and what future expenses and capital spending is going to arise in the foreseeable future. By knowing this, then I can make an informed decision as to how much or to whom I will contribute money. I would rather contribute in the light rather than in the dark. Third, the murkiness of the system is pretty much wide open to fraud. We know that fraud has occurred in some places and it is highly unlikely we know even a small portion of it. There needs to be a transparent and accountable system in place not only to minimize the risks of fraud, but to protect the reputations of those overseers and their trustees who are honest but who become guilty by association and inadequate control systems in place. Exactly. Well said. I don't begrudge the workers accepting the estates or portions of estates of any that want to leave money or property to the workers. But, it is very dishonest to preach that they leave all earthly good behind to preach the gospel and live on faith, while also accepting the worldly good of dying friends. It is the hypocrisy that disturbs me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 23:15:27 GMT -5
The issue of the trust funds or "kingdom bank accounts" is certainly a gnarly one. Personally, I'm not opposed to having larger funds in existence. There are several problems with it currently though. One problem is the presentation that the workers have "given up all" and "sacrificed everything" to be in the while the overseer has control of some unknown, presumably large in some places, amount of money. That hypocrisy should be dealt with one way or the other. Either the workers should stop telling people they have given up all for the gospel's sake or the overseer should recuse himself from any authority to use the money and it should be disbursed solely by a consensus of the friends. Another problem is the secrecy of the amounts. While I don't need to know how much money the overseer of England has, for instance, I would like to know where my own jurisdiction stands, how much is needed in it each year and what future expenses and capital spending is going to arise in the foreseeable future. By knowing this, then I can make an informed decision as to how much or to whom I will contribute money. I would rather contribute in the light rather than in the dark. Third, the murkiness of the system is pretty much wide open to fraud. We know that fraud has occurred in some places and it is highly unlikely we know even a small portion of it. There needs to be a transparent and accountable system in place not only to minimize the risks of fraud, but to protect the reputations of those overseers and their trustees who are honest but who become guilty by association and inadequate control systems in place. Exactly. Well said. I don't begrudge the workers accepting the estates or portions of estates of any that want to leave money or property to the workers. But, it is very dishonest to preach that they leave all earthly good behind to preach the gospel and live on faith, while also accepting the worldly good of dying friends. It is the hypocrisy that disturbs me. That is precisely why we won't contribute any longer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 23:44:25 GMT -5
I believe they have! Good analogy. It is interesting, the one with 4000 congregants has three service on Sunday morning, one in the evening, two Sat evening and he preaches on Sunday in between at a school near me. They just don't have enough room to seat more than 800 per service and folks bring their friends. And although I don't like the music, the preaching is solid with a focus on personal sanctification and charitable outreach. Some churches that are growing rent a school space and broadcast the pastor's sermon live from the main campus and there will be an assistant pastor on site to lead the local singing and answer questions, etc. Greg Laurie (harvest crusade) is doing that as his church is way too big now also. Despite being huge, it is a plain building. I think we could have had convention in the first floor and not have needed the balcony. And the whole campus is used every day and each evening; they get their money's worth out of that old stucco! A congregation of 4000 could easily afford a quality senior pastor and associate pastor. That part would run about $30/year each member although with a congregation that large, a senior pastor would probably make over $100K and there would be more staff than just the associate pastor. Still, $100/year for salaries is about what it would be. The average going rate for a senior pastor these days is over $80,000/year. So if the F&Ws paid the going rate for a senior and an associate, the cost to the average field of 100 adult friends would run over $120,000, depending on the experience of the associate. The salaries would cost each F&W over $1200, or $2400/year ($200/month) for each married couple supporting them. Under that system though, the friends wouldn't have the room and board costs as the pastors would rent their own premises to live in and buy their own food. With that comparison, the friends really benefit by having a ministry group willing to live on subsistence wages/gifts. You know, the churches I've attended don't pay any where near that much for their pastor, and two churches have pastors who work part-time to support the church. I don't know what the biggest church around here pays their pastor but I could easily find out. I do know he tithes 10% back and drives a old car and lives in a very modest home. The ass't pastors at two of the churches are volunteer. And no one has to donate; there is no requirement to do so if you chose to not do so. The big advantage is the preaching at all these churches is actually helpful. The music folks all volunteer at the smaller churches too. One of my friend's husband is a pastor and he cleans windows during the week to help pay the bills at home as he doesn't make enough. He cut his own pay as he didn't want the folks attending to feel obligated to pay more as he preaches in the 'low rent' district.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 0:26:08 GMT -5
A congregation of 4000 could easily afford a quality senior pastor and associate pastor. That part would run about $30/year each member although with a congregation that large, a senior pastor would probably make over $100K and there would be more staff than just the associate pastor. Still, $100/year for salaries is about what it would be. The average going rate for a senior pastor these days is over $80,000/year. So if the F&Ws paid the going rate for a senior and an associate, the cost to the average field of 100 adult friends would run over $120,000, depending on the experience of the associate. The salaries would cost each F&W over $1200, or $2400/year ($200/month) for each married couple supporting them. Under that system though, the friends wouldn't have the room and board costs as the pastors would rent their own premises to live in and buy their own food. With that comparison, the friends really benefit by having a ministry group willing to live on subsistence wages/gifts. You know, the churches I've attended don't pay any where near that much for their pastor, and two churches have pastors who work part-time to support the church. I don't know what the biggest church around here pays their pastor but I could easily find out. I do know he tithes 10% back and drives a old car and lives in a very modest home. The ass't pastors at two of the churches are volunteer. And no one has to donate; there is no requirement to do so if you chose to not do so. The big advantage is the preaching at all these churches is actually helpful. The music folks all volunteer at the smaller churches too. One of my friend's husband is a pastor and he cleans windows during the week to help pay the bills at home as he doesn't make enough. He cut his own pay as he didn't want the folks attending to feel obligated to pay more as he preaches in the 'low rent' district. I was pretty surprised when I researched it. I was expecting something in the range of $40K. One thing to be careful about is the reports of "average" salaries. The average tends to be lower than $80,000 because there are a lot of tiny churches which have pastors that don't get paid anything at all. So the thing to look at is what the compensation packages look like for churches of different sizes. The other thing to watch for is the benefits. A pastor may only receive a salary of $50K for instance but things like health insurance, vehicle, lodging may bring it up much higher.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 8, 2014 11:22:21 GMT -5
The issue of the trust funds or "kingdom bank accounts" is certainly a gnarly one. Personally, I'm not opposed to having larger funds in existence. There are several problems with it currently though. One problem is the presentation that the workers have "given up all" and "sacrificed everything" to be in the while the overseer has control of some unknown, presumably large in some places, amount of money. That hypocrisy should be dealt with one way or the other. Either the workers should stop telling people they have given up all for the gospel's sake or the overseer should recuse himself from any authority to use the money and it should be disbursed solely by a consensus of the friends. Another problem is the secrecy of the amounts. While I don't need to know how much money the overseer of England has, for instance, I would like to know where my own jurisdiction stands, how much is needed in it each year and what future expenses and capital spending is going to arise in the foreseeable future. By knowing this, then I can make an informed decision as to how much or to whom I will contribute money. I would rather contribute in the light rather than in the dark. Third, the murkiness of the system is pretty much wide open to fraud. We know that fraud has occurred in some places and it is highly unlikely we know even a small portion of it. There needs to be a transparent and accountable system in place not only to minimize the risks of fraud, but to protect the reputations of those overseers and their trustees who are honest but who become guilty by association and inadequate control systems in place. Exactly. Well said. I don't begrudge the workers accepting the estates or portions of estates of any that want to leave money or property to the workers. But, it is very dishonest to preach that they leave all earthly good behind to preach the gospel and live on faith, while also accepting the worldly good of dying friends. It is the hypocrisy that disturbs me. That bothers me too. Until I realized just how much my parents donated to the workers throughout their life and then a big portion of their estate I slowly came to realize they weren't as broke as they said they were. I don't begrudge them the money my parents donated, the Truth was their life and the workers were everything to them so it makes sense they wanted to help. But don't go around saying you are penniless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 14:59:03 GMT -5
You know, the churches I've attended don't pay any where near that much for their pastor, and two churches have pastors who work part-time to support the church. I don't know what the biggest church around here pays their pastor but I could easily find out. I do know he tithes 10% back and drives a old car and lives in a very modest home. The ass't pastors at two of the churches are volunteer. And no one has to donate; there is no requirement to do so if you chose to not do so. The big advantage is the preaching at all these churches is actually helpful. The music folks all volunteer at the smaller churches too. One of my friend's husband is a pastor and he cleans windows during the week to help pay the bills at home as he doesn't make enough. He cut his own pay as he didn't want the folks attending to feel obligated to pay more as he preaches in the 'low rent' district. I was pretty surprised when I researched it. I was expecting something in the range of $40K. One thing to be careful about is the reports of "average" salaries. The average tends to be lower than $80,000 because there are a lot of tiny churches which have pastors that don't get paid anything at all. So the thing to look at is what the compensation packages look like for churches of different sizes. The other thing to watch for is the benefits. A pastor may only receive a salary of $50K for instance but things like health insurance, vehicle, lodging may bring it up much higher. Speaking of benefits, DS drives around in a shiny new, very large Ford SUV that whoever is paying for (insurance included) would find it way cheaper to join another church~ Being a CPA, I am aware of how the numbers work and so appreciate the fact that the churches I'm looking into will make their annual reports available to all. Some are audited, so such things are reported in decent detail. The big church here has no benefit package for the pastor, and he doesn't get a free car. The independent churches here are not paying what the mainline churches pay, nor are they providing a place to stay, etc. But really, it boils down to whether 'as cheap as possible' is your goal or 'as good as possible' is. And that decision is highly personal. One thing I include in my definition of 'good' is clear expository preaching--whatever the system--but that's just me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 15:43:12 GMT -5
I was pretty surprised when I researched it. I was expecting something in the range of $40K. One thing to be careful about is the reports of "average" salaries. The average tends to be lower than $80,000 because there are a lot of tiny churches which have pastors that don't get paid anything at all. So the thing to look at is what the compensation packages look like for churches of different sizes. The other thing to watch for is the benefits. A pastor may only receive a salary of $50K for instance but things like health insurance, vehicle, lodging may bring it up much higher. Speaking of benefits, DS drives around in a shiny new, very large Ford SUV that whoever is paying for (insurance included) would find it way cheaper to join another church~ Being a CPA, I am aware of how the numbers work and so appreciate the fact that the churches I'm looking into will make their annual reports available to all. Some are audited, so such things are reported in decent detail. The big church here has no benefit package for the pastor, and he doesn't get a free car. The independent churches here are not paying what the mainline churches pay, nor are they providing a place to stay, etc. But really, it boils down to whether 'as cheap as possible' is your goal or 'as good as possible' is. And that decision is highly personal. One thing I include in my definition of 'good' is clear expository preaching--whatever the system--but that's just me. That's humble of DS....... WP had to have Cadillacs.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 8, 2014 16:04:04 GMT -5
How do penniless preachers justify driving around in vehicles that are worth more than a lot of their members could afford? Also sounds like they have top of the line computers, cell phones etc. Some things their members cannot afford either. Doesn't this ever twitch their conscience about how hypocritical it really is to preach one thing and then blatantly flaunt these things?
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jan 8, 2014 18:27:52 GMT -5
What about worker medical dental needs? And ongoing medical expenses if forced from that work?
Yeah, I know if they don't look sick or hurt, they can go find work and pay for themselves. Integrity and fairness, huh? If they have to leave, let them go penniless, teach 'em a lesson, huh? Yeppers, it sure does, and one that gets more expensive and painful as they grow old.
They should have medical/dental insurance rather than trying to foster them off onto often restrictive Governmental assistance. In the US, medical expenses, even the cost of medical insurance, is a significant challenge. Throughout the rest of the developed world, there are various forms of universal health care so this is an non-issue in most places. Dental care is not universal in most countries. If the friends were contributing a reasonable amount of cash to workers, most would be able to handle standard maintenance. Most places that I am familiar with, when a worker needs a significant amount of dental work, the overseer pulls it out of the trust funds. That doesn't help though if you are out of the work. I don't know if anyone can scream about the high medical costs in the United States for the workers. Sure, an expensive surgery happens from time to time, but I've seen the workers use this as a "fund-raiser" from the friends to bring in the money. The other thing that I see is that any friend with medical training is used by the workers. You also have all of the older workers signing up for Medicare and sometimes Social Security. I've also seen older workers moved to states where the restrictions for Medicare are lower.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 18:31:48 GMT -5
In the US, medical expenses, even the cost of medical insurance, is a significant challenge. Throughout the rest of the developed world, there are various forms of universal health care so this is an non-issue in most places. Dental care is not universal in most countries. If the friends were contributing a reasonable amount of cash to workers, most would be able to handle standard maintenance. Most places that I am familiar with, when a worker needs a significant amount of dental work, the overseer pulls it out of the trust funds. That doesn't help though if you are out of the work. I don't know if anyone can scream about the high medical costs in the United States for the workers. Sure, an expensive surgery happens from time to time, but I've seen the workers use this as a "fund-raiser" from the friends to bring in the money. The other thing that I see is that any friend with medical training is used by the workers. You also have all of the older workers signing up for Medicare and sometimes Social Security. I've also seen older workers moved to states where the restrictions for Medicare are lower. One older sister worker recently told me she was having trouble 'cashing her checks' as she had to use her Mother's bank to do so. She started dressing nicely and having nice stuff, and although I didn't ask her, I wondered if she was getting SSec. checks. She worked long enough, she could get a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 8, 2014 18:40:12 GMT -5
I don't know if anyone can scream about the high medical costs in the United States for the workers. Sure, an expensive surgery happens from time to time, but I've seen the workers use this as a "fund-raiser" from the friends to bring in the money. The other thing that I see is that any friend with medical training is used by the workers. You also have all of the older workers signing up for Medicare and sometimes Social Security. I've also seen older workers moved to states where the restrictions for Medicare are lower. One older sister worker recently told me she was having trouble 'cashing her checks' as she had to use her Mother's bank to do so. She started dressing nicely and having nice stuff, and although I didn't ask her, I wondered if she was getting SSec. checks. She worked long enough, she could get a bit. Maybe she took the annuity option from a winning Powerball ticket.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jan 8, 2014 18:56:18 GMT -5
I don't know if anyone can scream about the high medical costs in the United States for the workers. Sure, an expensive surgery happens from time to time, but I've seen the workers use this as a "fund-raiser" from the friends to bring in the money. The other thing that I see is that any friend with medical training is used by the workers. You also have all of the older workers signing up for Medicare and sometimes Social Security. I've also seen older workers moved to states where the restrictions for Medicare are lower. One older sister worker recently told me she was having trouble 'cashing her checks' as she had to use her Mother's bank to do so. She started dressing nicely and having nice stuff, and although I didn't ask her, I wondered if she was getting SSec. checks. She worked long enough, she could get a bit. It sounds wild, but some of the sister workers look forward to Medicare and Social Security. Gives them some independence, and they can get medical cares addressed at the doctor's office, not with the overseer ("You don't seem to have anything wrong with you," and "You're active for a sick person" - these are some of things that I've heard from sister workers when the overseer has denied them any money for medical care).
|
|