In 1974 W.A. Criswell, the longtime pastor of First Baptist Dallas, announced that he was giving back “every penny” he earned in salary during his 30 years as pastor. An article in the Baptist Press reported Dr. Criswell as saying, “The first time I preached in a church, the deacons took up a collection and I was given $10. I gave it back to them and told them I did not preach for money.”
At the time, he said he did not know how he was going to live without money, “but I had the tremendous feeling that I had given my life to God freely.” The account went on to say that a member of First Baptist Dallas, when informed of Criswell’s decision, remarked, “I think it is a wonderful thing for a great man to do.”
In 1987, Bill Hybels, the founding pastor of Willow Creek Community Church, froze his salary at $87,000 and a housing/car allowance because he did not want to create an opportunity for criticism of the church and his ministry. That has since been raised by the church’s Board to $95,000.
I don’t know if Rick Warren was inspired by Criswell’s example, but in 2005 Rick announced that he was doing the same. He totaled the salary he had received from Saddleback for 25 years and gave it all back. He and his wife, Kay, then became reverse tithers, giving away 90 percent of their income (from book sales, speaking engagements and other sources) and living on 10 percent. “Giving away the money was easy,” Rick has stated.
Of course, the issue of ministry leadership and compensation has been contentious from the outset in the Church. A subtle assumption exists that pastors should consider the example of Paul when he said in 1 Corinthians 9:18, “I would rather die than lose my right to boast about preaching without charge. What then is my pay? It is the opportunity to preach the Good News without charging anyone.”
This undercurrent (that those who are paid to preach are somehow less spiritual than those who either work for almost nothing or who eventually give it back so they can say they have preached for nothing) is why articles like the recent ones in the Charlotte Observer and from the Religion News Service on Franklin Graham’s salary capture so much attention. While Franklin decided six years ago to give up his pay as the head of the Billy Graham Association, the article discloses that he began receiving the salary again in 2011 in addition to his salary from Samaritan’s Purse. The total in 2014 was $878,667.
Is there a similar assumption that heads of Christian nonprofits should also have a cap on the amount of their compensation? If so, what are the limits and guidelines that donors might use in making their decision to fund a nonprofit?
Of course, there are strong opinions on all sides. Some argue that nonprofit leaders and pastors should emulate Paul. Others believe complex ministries cannot afford to settle for less than the highest quality leadership available – whatever the cost.
For some, like Tom Tierney and Dan Pallotta, the belief is that we have underpaid senior leadership and underfunded overhead out of a mistaken belief that low overhead and salaries is an accurate indicator of efficiency. As Tierney says, “We want to fund lofty results, but we resist the kind of productive overhead required to achieve those visions. Nobody wants their money going to executive salaries, office furniture and rent, but without these essentials, nothing is achieved. We don’t give with strings attached. We give with ropes attached: ropes that bind the effective operation of nonprofits. After all, they’re simply responding to our demands, keeping overhead low at the cost of performance and creating unreal expectations by espousing grandiose visions that can’t be fulfilled without long range strategies and investment.”
Dan is even more to the point: “We have a visceral reaction to the idea that anyone would make very much money helping other people. Interesting that we don’t have a visceral reaction to the notion that people would make a lot of money NOT helping other people.”
Rather than speculate on what donors think about compensation, I polled about 20 Gathering participants – individuals, foundation staff and principals about what they take into consideration when they are considering a gift to a ministry. Do they look at compensation? Do they have a way of deciding what is reasonable and what is not? Does it make any difference in their decision?
On the whole, 90 percent of the responses indicated the compensation of the CEO is not an issue and, typically, they would not even look at in their process.
Why not? Most said it is because they have a relationship of trust with all of the ministries they fund and feel it is the responsibility of the Board to set compensation.
But what about general guidelines about what is reasonable and what is not? Again, the general consensus was they do not have well-defined guidelines and would choose to use more of a “smell test” than a guideline given all the differences in particular situations.
I also asked, “Do you think the way Franklin’s compensation was handled would cause concerns among donors?” The overall response was it would probably have been better if handled in a more transparent manner. As well, some were surprised at the fact he is receiving compensation from two organizations but Franklin’s contribution to both is so substantial that there is more than enough reason to pay him the combined compensation.
What do you think? Would you lean toward the example of the Apostle Paul or Dan Pallotta?