Richard might have usefully added that the reason that the stipend is set at 80 per cent of AWOTE rather than 100 per cent is to take account of the FBT exemption. The committee at this point acknowledges that the FBT exemption provides ministers with an effective benefit. I would be interested to see what Richard estimates the grossed up income for a minister with housing benefit and a couple of reduced school fee arrangements would be. (Feel free to question my figures, please, but you will be more convincing if you provide your own, folks).
Then defend the non repayment of FEE help. Jason points out that the Melbourne diocese includes housing on the stipend statement. If this is supplied to the FEE help authorities it would seem to be a fairer basis on which to calculate repayment.
Richard makes some interesting points re super. It might be helpful for us to offer increased super payments (in which clergy are treated just like the rest of the community) OR expand payment of mortgage benefits.
I support us being generous to the clergy. But we pewsitters should be the generous party, not the tax payer.

David Clarke - 08 April 2008 12:36 AM

John,

Could you please post online how much you earn. That would be fun for us to discuss too.
Make sure you include the value of the desk, computer, software, phones, reference materials, office, and cars you have use of for work.
Tell us how much your house is worth, and make sure you include the ‘grossed up’ value of those tax free capital gains it earns you.

While you are at it how about you post up your address too, so I can send the homeless and needy people knocking at my door round to your place instead.

David, as a fellow clergyman, and someone who doesn’t agree with all that John has said, I think you over-stepped the mark a bit - as well as misunderstanding John’s comment about “fun”.  Let’s not get personal with each other.

Bob

Bob Cameron - 08 April 2008 02:13 PM

David Clarke - 08 April 2008 12:36 AM

John,

Could you please post online how much you earn. That would be fun for us to discuss too.
Make sure you include the value of the desk, computer, software, phones, reference materials, office, and cars you have use of for work.
Tell us how much your house is worth, and make sure you include the ‘grossed up’ value of those tax free capital gains it earns you.

While you are at it how about you post up your address too, so I can send the homeless and needy people knocking at my door round to your place instead.

David, as a fellow clergyman, and someone who doesn’t agree with all that John has said, I think you over-stepped the mark a bit - as well as misunderstanding John’s comment about “fun”.  Let’s not get personal with each other.

Bob

Actually reading this thread has made me think that the pewsitter columnist might really want to be a clergyman ;)

On a serious note, it was mentioned earlier that there should be an intention to pay back Fee-Help. There is nothing in the legislation to indicate that one must have such an intention and so it is a case of Christians inventing new laws (something which we can be very good at doing).

John would have a point if the diocese had changed the way it structured clergy packages in order to get around paying Fee-Help debts. But the government introduced Fee-Help fully aware of the clergy situation. So let’s not get engrossed with gross arguments about gross issues.

I agree with John that we must be perceived to be doing the right thing. But I don’t think we are perceived at the moment as doing the wrong thing, nor should we be. Apart from these forums, I have not detected any one who is outraged about clergy Fee-Help arrangements since the SMH article came out. I’m happy to be corrected, but I think we might concerned about a perception that doesn’t really exist.

I do agree with Peter D’s point about the dangers of colleges and denominations relying on Fee-Help. It would just take the stroke of a pen to cause colleges a lot of financial harm.

Disclaimer: I am a clergyman who is no longer active in paid church work. I’m the Academic Registrar at SMBC and in this role I give advice about Fee-Help and so have read up a lot about it. I have never used it though to pay for my studies.

Yours in Christ,
Mark

Is the FEE-HELP for clergy any different than state schools for the public?  We don’t expect the parents to pay the salary of the teachers or even the children to pay back their schooling costs after they are employed.  It seems to me that to be consistent, if people insist that clergy payback their FEE-HELP debt then they same should apply to those in the State Schools.  Of course the idea is ridiculous.  If the Government wants to generous to support education then so be it.  Don’t begrudge their generosity.  Isn’t there a parable about the generous land owner wanting to pay his workers the same regardless of their contribution?
Thax <><

In response to John’s suggestion, whatever the reason the stipend is set at 80% of AWE it is not primarily about considering FBT. The goal is that our ministers be able to live at a standard that is ‘neither riches nor poverty’. There is another thread that discusses definitions of poverty, but I would suggest that many ministers are closer to poverty that riches - depending on their personal circumstances. The goal in paying the stipend is that ministers should not have to worry about money, but be able to get on with ministry. In some cases where their spouse is not working (in paid work - usually they are in unpaid ministry) and they have more than two dependent kids then the money will get be very tight.

John suggested that the ‘grossed up’ amount of a ministers stipend and allowances might be well over $100,000. I can see how you might get this figure if you make certain assumptions about the beneficial value of the allowances, but I want to suggest that you re-consider my arguments above. If you want more detail I can send you a paper I wrote in 2006. My calculation at the time was that the beneficial value of the package was 104% of AWE (Which was $57,407 in 2005). Even if I am out by a few percent you will agree that this is much less than the norm for income for similarly trained persons at a similar stage of life - and probably much less than most people in full-time employment sitting in our pews (or plastic chairs).

You suggest we ought to include the value of clergy discounts at Anglican schools. This is so variable (and temporary) that of course it cannot be included in general calculations. As has rightly been pointed out it is an issue for the school to consider. Why do they give such discounts? Do they hope to gain something by having clergy families involved in the school community? How do these discounts compare with other scholarships (educational, academic or sporting)?

Perhaps the issue is that you are thinking about a particular case. Can I suggest that a minister being paid above minimum stipend and a large ‘housing benefit’ as well as other allowances and getting big discounts at the local Anglican school would be very rare if not completely unknown.

Finally I’ll make the point that if our churches didn’t have the favourable tax treatment we do have then the churches would have to pay a lot more to the government and probably a bit more to ministers to compensate. I think a lot of smaller churches already find it difficult to pay more than the bare minimum to ministers, even though they want to be generous.

Your conscience may be ‘weak’ on FBT issues, but I don’t think you should accuse those who have a stronger conscience of sinning. Perhaps you might think about saving money on your lunch by taking the FBT option - and put the difference toward Anglicare to help support those in need.

Bob Cameron - 07 April 2008 06:44 PM

Craig Bennett - 07 April 2008 05:03 PM

The ministerial [sic] sacrifice ... can’t be used to pay for his wifes dental bill or holidays for example. It has to be used for his personal educational purposes as well as some other areas which I can’t remember at the moment - books, other study, expenditure for conferences etc which ministers are expected to attend and furthermore professionally stretch themselves.

Actually, stipend sacrifice can be used for anything that the minister and his ‘employer’ agree on.  Although in the Sydney Anglican Diocese the guidelines approved by Standing Committee are fairly limited (and even include things which by there nature are not Fringe Benefits!), those guidelines do not have the force of law. 
Bob

Does anyone know if there is a copy of these guidelines online?

edited:

I think I found it here: www.sds.asn.au/assets/Documents/circulars/RemunerationGuidelines-2008.Final.pdf

Jason Hobba - 07 April 2008 11:42 PM

Hi John,
Response part 1.

Okay, let’s say that there is a decent benefit from housing. Let’s get really Pharisaical and if we’re going to include every benefit and loss (this really is a silly exercise, but I’m doing it to make a point), then let’s subtract the amount of time many clergy spouses and their families spend in active unpaid ministry in the parish from that total benefit - after all the housing is used to house the ministry family, and we all know the expectations many churches have of clergy spouses and families. There is benefit to the parish in their unpaid ministry that is additional to the paid ministry “supplied” by the clergy (and the parish only engages the full time ministry of the clergy person, doesn’t it?). And if we were to put a notional value on it, we might say something in the area of $25 000 p.a.

After all, in which other vocation (except politicians perhaps - and they get paid a whole lot more) does a person’s family contribute (and in some cases is expected to contribute) to one family member’s “job”?

One of the reasons the tax office and the Diocese probably avoids determining that clergy housing is a benefit is because it’s very messy trying to determine what specific “benefits” are derived, and what “losses” incurred for clergy.

Hi Jason,

this is concerning to me (and I know you admitted it was taking a Pharisaical view), because, surely all believers should be using what we have for the kingdom - it doesn’t matter if our house is provided by the church, or if our husband/dad is paid by the church, or not - we should all be doing unpaid ministry, and using our homes for it.

I understand that minister’s families do a lot of unpaid work.  I grew up in a manse and could not give any reasonable estimate of the number of church-related phone messages I took, just as an example, not to mention the countless hours of work my mother put in, or the evenings when the downstairs part of our home was being used for meetings.  But to put things in perspective, my mother, who is now widowed, currently has a far more time and energy-consuming ministry (unpaid) in a different denomination to the one in which I grew up.  So I suspect that she would have been just as busy had she not been a minister’s wife.

I also know from my more recent experience that most churches would not function without many hours of unpaid work by many ordinary Christians.  I don’t think that they would ever consider being paid for it - I suspect the idea would be abhorrent to many of them.  I’m sure most of us could think of people doing amazing Christian ministry without payment.

I guess my main concern with comments such as these is how they reflect on our understanding of what the church is.  There can be a tendency in some places to see the minister as a kind of “professional” Christian.  Itemising the unpaid work of the minister’s family, whether it’s a silly exercise or not, only adds to this.  And don’t all Christians have a vocation?

kind regards,

Caroline Robertson

Craig Thacker - 08 April 2008 04:44 PM

Is the FEE-HELP for clergy any different than state schools for the public?  We don’t expect the parents to pay the salary of the teachers or even the children to pay back their schooling costs after they are employed.  It seems to me that to be consistent, if people insist that clergy payback their FEE-HELP debt then they same should apply to those in the State Schools.  Of course the idea is ridiculous.  If the Government wants to generous to support education then so be it.  Don’t begrudge their generosity.  Isn’t there a parable about the generous land owner wanting to pay his workers the same regardless of their contribution?
Thax <><

Craig
It’s not a valid comparison.  The tertiary education system operates on a completely different basis to the primary and secondary systems.  ALL tertiary students pay fees, only some get help with fees (admittedly, a large majority, whether through FEE-HELP or HECS) and not all places in tertiary institutions are subsidised.  Hope my point is clear - I’m writing on the fly!
Bob

Adam Olive - 08 April 2008 05:35 PM

Does anyone know if there is a copy of these [diocesan remuneration ] guidelines online?

edited:

I think I found it here: www.sds.asn.au/assets/Documents/circulars/RemunerationGuidelines-2008.Final.pdf

That’s it.
Bob

The Bible is clear that church leaders are accountable to God and will be judged more strictly.

A particularly relevant passage for the discussion so far is…
(1 Tim 5:17-19) “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.” 19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.”

So in the context of discussing the payment of church leaders it particularly warns about unsubstantiated accusations being made.

In this discussion thread there had been a whole lot of :
‘I know someone who does this’
‘I have heard of this…’
without any substantiation or indication that the matter has been taken up with the individuals concerned.

If there is a problem with someone doing the wrong thing, then you should rebuke them. Do not make unfounded public accusations that suggest other people are acting inappropriately. To do so should not be a game or ‘fun’ activity.

If you are grumbling about money because you have a problem with how a person is conducting their ministry, then talk with them about the ministry issue.

If you have a problem with jealousy, then deal with it appropriately in your life.

If you are grumbling about money because you have a problem with how a person is conducting their ministry, then talk with them about the ministry issue.

If you have a problem with jealousy, then deal with it appropriately in your life.

David

Maybe you’re picking up more than I am from this discussion, but it seems to me that the bulk of the discussion has not been around implications that there are a whole lot of us clergy out there doing the wrong thing, but rather around the question of perception:
1) Are ministers and/or the church being perceived to be doing something wrong or unfair?  And
2) If that is the case, is there anything we can/should do about it, or do we just accept that some people are going to have that kind of view?

I’m not at all convinced that the answer to the first question is Yes, and therefore the second question is largely theoretical in my view.  But I don’t think we should attack John S or others, or react defensively, for raising legitimate questions.  I would remind everyone that this thread was started by Shane Rogerson, an Anglican clergyman!  It might serve us well to go back and look at the list of questions he raised in the first place.

Bob

G’day Caroline,

Caroline Robertson - 08 April 2008 05:53 PM

Hi Jason,

this is concerning to me (and I know you admitted it was taking a Pharisaical view), because, surely all believers should be using what we have for the kingdom - it doesn’t matter if our house is provided by the church

I acknowledge your concerns - and you’re right to be concerned. My point - and perhaps it wasn’t clear enough - was, housing is provided on the same basis as the stipend for clergy. The theological reason is to provide for the needs of those who preach the gospel - i.e., that they make a living from the gospel (as someone has already pointed out - 1 Cor 9). That means the nominal housing component in clergy stipend and benefit packages aren’t an appropriate category to “gross up” for Fringe Benefits.

By extension, then, the clergy family in some way share in that dedication to preaching the gospel of the clergy person and that puts them in a theologically different situation than the “lay person” who gives of their time. That is, the “lay person” isn’t set aside by the church to teach, preach, and lead etc.

So, my “pharisaical” point was, if people are going to treat the clergy situation like some other secular position for the sake of a silly hypothetical exercise in “grossing up” their income, then a comparable secular account of the clergy family needs to take place to give a truer picture of “benefit” gained or “loss” incurred. It was meant to demonstrate the somewhat petty points-scoring about clergy stipends and benefits in relation to the FEE-Help discussion.

We might argue that clergy have an obligation to repay FEE-help, but that ought to be done on other (biblical) grounds rather than attempting to prove by “grossed up” figures that they can afford it, and therefore should do it.

(BTW - I’m paying full-fees for my enrollment as a part-time student in a Masters, and it ain’t cheap. So FEE-help is a consideration in the future)

What I haven’t seen discussed (it may have been, but I missed it) in relation to FEE-help is the fact that, usually, extra qualifications means a higher salary for those in the secular workforce. That’s not necessarily the case for those training for full-time ministry. How might that relate to the FEE-Help discussion?