Dear Sir,
How should churches remunerate supply ministers (September EN, Letters column)?
No simple rule will suffice. According to Henry Barrow’s answer to Archbishop Whitgift: support should be ‘according to the present want of the one, and the estate of the other [the congregation].’ Some will be able to offer their services free of charge, perhaps even subsidising their own travelling expenses, while others need an income to supplement a pension or to supply their whole needs. Thomas Goodwin argues that the remuneration of permanent ministers is an agreement or covenant between the pastor and his flock. This agreement should be fair and equitable and neither side should feel constrained to accept unreasonable terms proposed by the other.
This brings me to the elephant in the room, the unwritten and, to my mind, unscriptural requirement that a retiring minister distances himself from the congregation he has served for many years. The worldly wisdom is to give the new minister a free hand while it also requires the old minister to abandon his charge.
Honouring our elders implies their continuance among the flocks they have tended over the years so that mutual respect and support may continue. As all ministers are undershep-herds of the one Great Shepherd, this implies continuity of ministry and a collaboration of ministers across the generations.
The fund-based pension is very much a modern invention and is fast breaking down due to demographics, inflation and other machinations of financiers. Should our churches be investing in such pension plans for our ministers, or should we be countercultural and investing our funds in gospel work so that larger, stronger churches have the people and resources both to support their elderly ministers and supply those churches in need of a settled ministry?
Sincerely,
