Church leaders have approved in principle a proposal they say will give more flexibility to the church's wage-setting system, and will better articulate the spiritual principles on which it is based.
Church leaders have approved in principle a proposal they say will give more flexibility to the church’s wage-setting system, and will better articulate the spiritual principles on which it is based. After more than two hours of discussion and debate, the members of the world church executive committee gave initial endorsement to the plan, which would move away from a single wage scale set by the General Conference and give each of the church’s 13 divisions freedom to interpret the church’s philosophy of remuneration within the unique context of their own territories.
“We have cherished the notion of a single remuneration system for more than 40 years, and this system has served our church well,” said Gerry Karst, a vice president of the Adventist world church and chair of the Remuneration Commission, the international group responsible for bringing recommendations to Spring Meeting. But as the church continues to grow and the world becomes more complex, it has become necessary to look at alternatives, he said.
In reviewing the church’s wage-setting system, said Karst, the Commission grappled with issues such as: What does it mean for wages to be “ample, fair and just?” How does our approach to setting salaries relate to the concept of a unified world church structure? How can we ensure transparency and full disclosure in the process of setting remuneration rates?
According to Karst, the Commission’s report attempts to ground the church’s remuneration philosophy firmly in scripture, and in principles from the writings of Ellen White. He also emphasized the need to protect the “spirit of collegiality” between church employees by avoiding large variations in wage rates attached to different positions.
“The Remuneration Commission had to face the reality that there is really not a single system,” said Karst. “Structural units and institutions have departed from the system, and there have been many varied, creative departures from the single wage factor.”
Under the proposed new system, Karst explained, each division would consider the variables in their region and interpret the church’s remuneration philosophy, finding a balance between “fundamental fairness” and the “spirit of sacrifice” that is paramount in furthering the mission of the church.
Pastor Laurie Evans, president of the church in the South Pacific region, said he was grateful for the degree of flexibility the recommendations provided. He said the document allows freedom for the divisions in setting salary scale, “while still maintaining some common reference points for building a broad consistency throughout the fabric of our international remuneration policy.” He urged fellow members of the executive committee, however, to keep a check on the difference between the salaries of pastors and administrators. “Is the work of an administrator more dramatic or stressful than the work of a frontline pastor?” he asked.
The remuneration of local pastor should be central to our wage-setting philosophy, said Karst. “Philosophically, the pastor is the most important member in out structure, keeping the Adventist Church healthy and growing. But at least here in North America, some pastors’ families find it almost impossible to survive if the spouse does not work outside the home.
“Are we providing fair remuneration if a pastor’s wife cannot stay home with her children?” asked Karst. “Under the proposed approach, divisions can decide what is ‘fair and reasonable’ within the context of their unique environments.”
Dr. Lyn Behrens, president of Loma Linda University and Medical Center, said she was pleased that the proposal allowed for “diversity within our concept of unity.” But she noted the “multitude of application issues that need to be considered,” and called for members of the executive committee to have more time to consider the implications of the move.
Members of the executive committee voted by a narrow margin, 92 to 84, to approve the document in principle, but delay implementation until after Annual Council in October. This will give an opportunity for leaders to reflect on the implications of the policy, and allow broader input and review before final endorsement.