This week, the Board of Pensions of my denomination, the
Presbyterian Church (USA), announced a plan to change the current medical
coverage plan in what amounts to a radical way.
First, I should say that the
Board of Pensions is a wonderful service and safety net for Presbyterian clergy, active and retired, and in far better shape than the plans of many other
denominations. One reason for this health is good management. Another reason is
the community nature of the plan itself. All churches are required to pay into
the plan a percentage of the salary paid to pastoral staff, regardless of
church size or anything else. This covers medical care, pension, and death and
disability coverage for plan members. A church pays the same percentage whether
its pastor is healthy or chronically ill; whether the pastor is single with no
children or married with many dependents. All pastors who are members of the
Board of Pensions then receive the same medical benefits (varying by state),
regardless of whether they serve a small, rural congregation or a large church
with a multi-million dollar budget.
Imagine a pastor who is called to a small, rural church. The
church can’t afford to pay much more than the presbytery minimum (a minimum
salary that varies from presbytery to presbytery, or region to region), and
that isn’t much money. She still has outstanding debts from her undergraduate
and seminary education, and her husband has some educational debt, as well.
They have one baby and hope to expand their young family in the near future.
The salary the church offers isn’t much, and the couple knows that taking this
call will require living very simply and making certain sacrifices. Despite a
having a professional degree equivalent to that of a lawyer, this young woman
has known that her salary will likely never be commensurate with her level of
education and experience. Still, she and her husband feel called to serve in
this particular place, and so she accepts the position, knowing that at least
that their basic needs will be covered – food, shelter, and health care.
The couple move, and the husband isn’t able to find full
time work in the new community. In fact, the work he is able to find pays
barely enough to cover the cost of childcare so that he can go to work. Money
is tight, but at least their basic needs are met.
The church has been struggling financially for some time.
The dues that the church pays to cover the pastor under the Board of Pensions
are not insignificant, but they are at least scaled to the salary offered. A
large church down the road pays its pastor twice what this small church can
pay, but at least the small church can offer the same medical coverage to a
pastor, making the playing field a little more level.
This scenario plays itself out in churches across the
country. In the PC(USA), more than 50% of our congregations have fewer than 100
members, and more than 50% of those are under 50. While our church is working
to establish 1001 new worshipping communities, these new worshipping communities
are often ministering to the people who are most in need of the outreach, but
often least able to financially sustain pastoral leadership. The disparity of
salaries between ministers at “large steeple” churches and the rest of us is
huge, even if education levels and years of experience are the same. There is
still a wide pay disparity between men and women, and between white,
non-Hispanic pastors and pastors of other races or ethnicities. For a church
that prides itself on being “connectional,” we are full of inequalities that
reflect both changing realities and institutional injustices.
I understand that the Board of Pensions dues are a financial
burden for many smaller churches, in particular. This proposed change would
reduce the medical portion of those dues from 21%, where it currently stands,
to 19% of effective salary. This is being celebrated as a way to reduce the
costs of dues. What this does is rather shifts the burden of the costs of
medical care from congregations to the pastors that serve them.
The Board of Pensions coverage will still cover 100% of the
costs of health insurance for the member (note that this does NOT include
deductibles, co-pays, and all of the other costs associated with health care),
but only 65% of the cost for dependents. The member can choose to add full
dependent coverage by paying a “fixed premium/flat dollar amount” at different
levels: member plus partner, member plus child/ren, member plus family (partner
plus child/ren). The more dependents, the higher the cost.
This means that plan members will face the same costs
regardless of salary, removing the protective aspect of percentage-based fees
that churches enjoy. Whatever this fee ends up being, it will require a much
bigger percentage of the salary of a pastor who is working at presbytery
minimum than a pastor whose salary is two or three times presbytery minimum or
more – a pay disparity that is quite common across the country. This means that those who have the very least to
begin with are more disproportionately hurt by this proposed change.
Also, the change allows for the church to pick up the
additional cost – something that is far more likely to happen in wealthier
congregations than in most others. It is not uncommon for clergy who are
well-compensated to negotiate these kinds of extras in the package – things
like optional dental coverage, a larger “professional expenses” allowance, more
money for continuing education. That is great, but what it means is that in
many cases, pastors who are already making far less money also have more
expenses out of pocket that aren’t covered by the church, such as this
additional premium charge. This continues to give large churches an additional
advantage in clergy recruitment and retention, while smaller churches (and the
pastors that serve them) suffer.
Going back to the communal nature of the plan, it is true
that churches who pay higher salaries and have more staff pay more into the
Board of Pensions. But, there is a cap. So the churches that pay the highest
salaries are actually protected from paying the regular percentage of dues.
These churches are going to be least affected by raises in the dues structure.
It is usually the smallest churches that feel most acutely
the burden of rising dues. So while it seems to offer some relief to those
churches, at a second look, it is still the larger, wealthier churches that
come out ahead. In my presbytery, the minimum “effective salary” (this is cash
salary, including the housing allowance, or cash salary plus the value of the
use of a manse, if applicable) is $33,600. For a person coming out of 7 years
or more of higher education, this is not much, and yet at least 2/3 of the
congregations in our presbytery are unable to afford even the minimum,
resulting in many part-time calls, difficulty finding trained pastoral
leadership, etc… At any rate, this proposed change would reduce the medical
portion of dues paid for presbytery minimum salary from $7,056 a year to $6,384
a year, a savings of $672 a year. I don’t know what the premium costs will be
for adding dependent coverage, but I am willing to bet that it will be more
than $672 a year. Even if the church wanted to offer to cover the additional
dependent coverage, they would likely be unable to do so.
On the other hand, for a pastor making $75,000 a year (and
there are a few in our presbytery that make more than that), medical dues would
go from $15,750 down to $14,250 – a savings of $1500. That would be closer to
the cost of covering dependent coverage, and it probably wouldn’t make much of
a dent for the church to assume those costs.
Of course, if the plan continues to go unchanged, the folks
at Board of Pensions know that the medical dues percentages will have to be
raised, perhaps up to 25%. That does add to the burden that churches have to
pay, but it would allow smaller congregations to continue to offer competitive
health care coverage, which would free more candidates to serve those churches.
What is being discussed is a 2% change in medical dues. This
is a very SMALL savings for churches that are already at the low end of the
salary spectrum – the vast majority of our congregations, and a larger savings
for the wealthier churches. This increases the burden particularly on young
clergy, who are more likely to have dependents, who are more likely to be
working at or around presbytery minimum, who are more likely to have crushing
educational debt, and who are less likely to have savings, established
households, and other financial cushions.
I know that financial realities must be addressed, but this
is the wrong way to do it. When we talk about our responsibility to care for
the most vulnerable in society, may we not forget about our own.
Additional blog responses are linked below. If you would
like me to add a link, please send it in an email or comment.
Rev. Ryan Kemp-Pappan, Stated Supply Pastor, responds
Rev. Carol Howard Merritt, pastor and writer, responds at the Christian Century
