I think there are a number of things at play that need to be considered with respect to income that pastors receive that require a more critical eye. A lot of people are missing the fact that pastors today are not only receiving money from "salary" but also generating income that is being produced from business interest.
I grew up Anglican which is a Christian denomination that is both Catholic and Protestant. We're known as the "Via Media" or "middle road". So we have the benefit of having retained the older forms of Christianity while incorporating some Protestant views. We also sit at a vantage point where we can see the extent to which the American branches of Christianity have been watered down so much from Roman Catholicism that they lose a lot of context behind certain practices of the church and how they formed from certain traditions.
In Roman Catholicism, Priest had to traditionally take vows of poverty. This meant that they could not own any personal property or build wealth for themselves and any wealth that had been accumulated previous to them entering the priesthood had to be given up to the broader church. The idea was that priest should relinquish all earthly desires and should instead focus the energy of his whole being on the desiring of God. I feel, in theory, this is how things are suppose to be. However, I don't think it's practical in today's society unless you decide to go into some type of order or convent where you give up all earthly possessions and can focus all your of your time on spiritual endeavors 24/7.
In my own church, the priest doesn't take vows of poverty, but he owns or possesses no assets of the church. He can't engage in any business ventures on behalf of the church. He can't start or name "ministries" after himself in which he could gleam a profit. All assets of the church, from the physical building, to any other money-inducing endeavors, are owned by the Diocese which is headed by the Bishop. The Diocese or Bishop essentially owns every physical real estate or business interest in the district of which he appoints priest to be "stewards" of at his discretion. Even moreso, the Diocese and Bishop, is under the provenance of the Presiding Bishop, who is head of the national church. And it is the national church that owns every asset under it's name across the country.
This has been the position of the older Christian churches. The church owns the wealth and property, the priest owns nothing.
The american church specifically the black church which wholly influenced the broader mainstream evangelical movement is a bit different in it's approach because, at the core of "protestantism", is an eschewing of hierarchy. Power and authority is not vertical but horizontal. More power is held at the individual church level and not at higher levels above the individual church. This means, the equivalent of what would be the priest in my church, the pastor, typically has more power and autonomy. And with that, pastors can not only engage in business endeavors on behalf of his church, he can also individually gleam a profit from those business ventures separate from what they would receive from "salary".
Most of what we see from ministers, especially in the megachurches, are a product of their business ventures. For instance, many of my family members who left our family church attend a local megachurch headed by Bill Winston who is a big time pastor and regularly airs on television. First of all, Bill Winston's church is owned by "Bill Winston Ministries". "Bill Winston Ministries" purchased what was essentially a dead mall, converted half of it into the physical property of his megachurch, and then the other half is rented out by other business ventures initiated by Bill Winston himself, including a bank, book store, grocery store, clothing store, fitness center, restaurants, business school, and bottling plant. Space is also being rented out by big box grocery and retail stores in his complex. So all of the money generated from these interest goes back to "Bill Winston Ministries" of which the owner and CEO, Bill Winston, is accorded the income. This doesn't include money from books, CDs, videos, conferences, and speaking engagemsnts that "Bill Winston Ministries" also brings in. All of this is compounded by the fact that Bill Winston Ministries is a religious organization and therefore non-taxable. If this was in my church, it would be the Diocese, and in theory the Bishop, and even further the national church headed by the Presiding Bishop that owns all of the property and business interest, and not the individual priest from with which he could profit.
That's just business ventures.
On the subject of actual salary. I do believe ministers/priest should be accorded a salary and that should be determined solely by his church. Whatever his church is comfortable giving, I personally ain't got nothing to say about it. If the church is in agreement with giving their pastor $1 million a year and they are a small struggling church, that is their choice.
I do think it is quite obtuse that many people dismiss the role of a pastor. Caring for the mental and physical well-being of a congregation is extremely taxing and exhausting and I think the tradition has been that congregants felt that they can at least provide for the physical necessities of their spiritual leader so he can focus on their spiritual needs.This tradition has obviously turned into the monster that we have today but the fault lies squarely on the people of the church and not the pastor.
I think to understand the greed that we see being currently perpetuated by many evangelical churches with respect to tithes and offerings, I think we have to look at the black church, as it has wholly influenced the evangelical movement in America, and specifically look at it's historical roots.
It is severely taken for granted the amount of indigenous African practices that have been infused into the early black church by our enslaved African ancestors. When you look at the different variations of vodun practiced throughout the diaspora and West Africa, you'll note that when practitioners went to visit a priest or priestess, they had to always bring something of value in exchange for "revelation". I think this "transactional" exchange carried over into the early roots of the black church. This was different from Europe where practitioners of early Christianity, when they brought something of value to give, because a priest could take no wealth, that object of value went to the church. Whereas in Africa, the vodun priest/priestess took that object of value unto themselves.
This carried over into America and so when our ancestors established our first churches, the idea of tithes and offerings was already understood from our vodun roots and specifically within a context of a transactional religious experience - when the pastor preaches and gives revelation and calls the holy spirit upon us, we must give him something of value for doing so.
I think this is from where the "love offering" was born. In the south, because there were lots of churches and not enough preachers, when preachers travelled around and visited churches, congregations would take up love offerings on their behalf which went directly to sustaining the lifestyle of the preacher. I think over time, the love offering became synergized with regular tithes and offerings to the point that many preacher started to feel entitled to both, or in effect, didn't see any difference.
I think the biggest contributing factor to the greed of many pastors stems from congregants and the image they historically felt church bestowed upon them. Many churchgoers feel that their church contributes to their image. That the people who attend and the pastors that leads represents them and their values, passions, and ultimate aspirations. At the top of that pecking order was the pastor who was the face of the church and the face of your aspirations. And because he was the face of your church and aspirations, churchgoers wanted the pastor to reflect well on them. You want the pastor to look good and live well because it meant that you either do or you will eventually. And because of this thought process, you started to find many churches increasing the amount of love tithes and offerings to their pastors overtime. This created competition between churches. People sought out the churches with the pastors who were well-dressed and lived good. This created a negative effect on smaller and poorer churches, where pastors started to feel that in order to compete and attract new congregants, they had to buy into that lifestyle which meant demanding more money from their already poor congregations. Many times those folks didn't have a problem with struggling to provide the pastor with more because their own self-esteem was tied into the image of their pastors. So the whole thing ballooned out of control to what we have today. That being the greed of many pastors being the result of their own congregations and their insecurities.
All of that, notwithstanding, I do believe preachers should have a salary, just decided upon by their own congregation.
I sit on the governing board my family's church. We have the authority to hire and fire the Priest, set the budgets, including his salary. Our parish is small but owns alot of real estate. We own a mansion in the same neighborhood that Obama lives in which our head priests over the years reside in during their tenure. We pay them a salary, that caps at $200k after years of experience and provide travel and continuing education stipends. Our former priest that just retired is also a real estate executive and makes in the high six-figures so he was caked up very good. We're getting a new younger and less experienced priest in his thirties so we have set his salary at five figures, but he will have access to the residence until he retires and the stipends and his salary will increase with commiserate tenure.
