…that can’t get any respect. I can’t think of the last time I heard a pastor say anything positive about the fact that he lived in the parsonage. Maybe never. I don’t see data on it but church-owned housing seems to have been declining for a long time. Younger pastors are aghast at the idea of being tied to the church by living in a house owned by the church.
Each of the churches I pastored had a parsonage and my family and I lived in it because that was the only option available. For the two rural churches I pastored the only way the pastor could live on the church field, where his members lived, was to move into the parsonage. My first church owned an old house with a huge front yard. They improved it and took care of it. It was located a couple of hundred yards from the church and it was not obvious that it was “the preacher’s house.” Thus, there wasn’t much of an issue with strangers stopping by or members being insensitive to the privacy of their pastor or his family. So far as I know, the current pastor (and this is over three decades past when we moved to another church) lives in the house.
My second church had a modern, new, large house. It was next to the church and the church was proud that they could have a house for their preacher and family that was generally better than houses in which most of the members lived. The house was the third generation parsonage, the church moving up to bigger and better housing each time. Once when on a mission trip in Africa, I took a copy of the church directory to show national Christians in the churches where I was preaching. They found the picture of the parsonage and were quite taken with what a huge mansion it was. Bad move by me to display that to people some of whom still lived in wattle and daub houses. Alas, the current pastor of this church refused to live in the house and the church made an arrangement for him to commute, sometimes staying in the house but mostly not. Local church autonomy at work here.
My small town church had a parsonage that was in poor shape because they did not expect to keep the house indefinitely. Why spend money on it? Before I came they made a commitment to sell it and pay me a cash housing allowance where I could buy my own house. The arrangement didn’t have deadlines but was rather open ended. Thankfully, one deacon took the lead in moving the church to pay me a cash allowance. The house was rented for a time and then sold.
In the meantime, my family and I had to live in it (we lived in the house about six years) and stuff needed to be done. Stuff got done. The transition to the housing allowance was smooth. I built a house in the community and didn’t have to move when I retired. And…brethren and sistren…I have equity which is the big issue about living in someone else’s house.
Sometimes churches have difficulty in seeing the matter of the parsonage from the perspective of their pastor. After all, it was likely a big advance for the church to have a parsonage where their pastor could live for free. The acquisition of a parsonage probably went along with the church going “full time.” It was a victory for the congregation, an occasion when they felt a sense of accomplishment. And their beloved pastor got to live in a free house.
Well, sort of free. The humble parson has to pay Social Security SECA taxes on the fair rental value of the house. He pays no mortgage, no taxes, no insurance on the house but the SECA taxes probably amount to several hundred dollars a quarter. The church can factor that into his cash compensation but probably doesn’t. I tried to educate every finance committee, every deacon board, and the congregation in general on the realities of living in that free house.
- It wasn’t exactly free because of the tax on the FRV
- It wasn’t free because it robbed me of accumulating equity in the house
- It triggered what was perhaps the biggest concern for the pastor and family: What would he do, where would they live, when he retired or left the ministry?
- There are costs associated with being next to the church building, lack of privacy and constant availability.
All that said, I didn’t have any huge problems living in the lowly parsonage. Church folks were considerate, helpful, and supportive. They were also understanding when it came time to get out of the parsonage business. Thank the Lord for all that. Others tell me their experiences are not quite so positive.
For established churches (churches that are old, mature, and have been through several generations of members), seems to me that it is more difficult to see the burden that the parsonage is to the pastor and his family. Many of the members may still think of how great it is for the pastor to have a “free” house in which to live because Brother Bubba was so happy to have a house back in the 1950s. Some effort to educate the church is always in order. I would make the point in leadership meetings that every one of the deacons was accumulating equity while in their own house, that I was not, and that I faced the largest expense (and probably the largest indebtedness) of my life when I retired.
If you don’t want to live in a church with a parsonage, then (a) don’t go there, or (b) insist on not living in it and receiving a cash allowance. Don’t get there and complain about it.
Most of the leaders understood this and were sympathetic and open to options to address it. It may be that the church doesn’t expect the pastor to stay indefinitely and a short term pastorate is what is best for all. You come. You stay in the house. You move on to a larger church and buy your own house. Unfortunately, we cannot all be large and megachurch pastors. Most SBC churches are quite small, actually.
If there is no option to the parsonage then the pastor should have some long term plan for housing. To spend decades living in parsonages and then expect some housing miracle when you retire is unrealistic. It’s the pastor’s fault if he is unprepared for this.
We’ve all got our stories. Let’s hear yours.
__________________
And, who calls you the “parson?” Why do you, then, live in a “parsonage.” You’re a pastor, right? Therefore, you live in a “pastorium.” Sounds better, anyway.
It was only when I served in Georgia that our church had a “pastorium” – everywhere else its been called a “parsonage”.
Smart people in Georgia but they can’t seem to spell the one syllable noun for mans best friend. “Dawg” is what we get here.
The last pastorium I lived in was the finest house I have ever lived in. The church was talked into selling their old pastorium and paying the pastor a housing allowance that would allow him buy his own home and build equity. The only problem is we lived in a place with no housing market.Years after he moved out of state he was still the proud owner of a home in Mississippi. Don’t buy the hogwash about building equity. Many placed in the rural USA have homes that depreciate annually not appreciate.
Seeing the error of their way, they purchased a 5 year-old home out of town, about 4 miles from the church. It was about 4,000 sq ft with the finest detached shop and most beautiful yard you have could imagine.
It was our home and the people in the church and community respected that. I loved the community, the people, the church, and I loved the home they provided for my family.
I take your point, Dean. The local market may be disadvantageous to the parson owning a home. Generally though, home ownership is preferable. Devil’s in the details.
Let me be the one to say something good about personages. I have been in ministry nearly 39 years and I have lived in 6 parsonages. They were not mansions but they were adequate homes that met the needs of my family. We had three children and none of them ever shared a bedroom. They were not always equipped with the finest of things but they were adequately equipped and adequately maintained. In most cases they were better houses than I might have been able afford otherwise. When we moved in my wife made it home, no one snooped around and tried to tell us how we should live, and church members did not invade our privacy in other ways. I think perhaps that was because that is what we expected and the people respected that. When maintenance was needed I called the trustees and they took care of it. Sometimes, more often I just called the plumber or electrician and they showed up and fixed it and sent the church the bill. When I went to a church I did not have to worry about looking for a house (I have I am sure, at least once, backed away from furthering discussions with a church because I found the house not adequate for my family. But to me that was part of discerning the call). When I left the church I did not worry about a house selling. I never had to leave my family behind. We packed up our things and the kids and we moved never having to look back. We found the parsonage convenient. One of them was a mile from the church which I found inconvenient. The rest were right next to the church. This was particularly good for us especially as our children aged. One of our children a 35 year old Developmentally disabled adult still lives with us. We can safely send him across the lawn or parking lot with a key knowing he was safe while we finished conversations. Parsonages have been an asset to me and my family.
Granted, I will need to retire in a few years and will not have the asset of home equity to help navigate the retirement picture. Hopefully, I have prepared well enough otherwise to compensate for that. Nevertheless count me as an advocate for parsonages, especially for the small church and small towns.
I am 37 and have lived in two different personages in the last eight years and I am thankful for them. I don’t understand the negativity related to parsonages and as churches grow smaller they are going to wish they had parsonages to help pay their pastor.
I’m 39 and we live in a parsonage. We’re squeezed kind of tight in there, and my wife is a saint for getting all seven of us straightened out and organized. Other than lack of space, we’ve not had many problems. They were going to add on to the parsonage for us, but I wouldn’t let them spend that much money. Wasn’t worth it. That being said, we do have rental property in case something happens, we do have somewhere to go.
Slumlord are you? That’s the way to do it. Smart guy.
That’s right I’m a slum lord. Is that one word or two separate words? Anyway, I even had to kick somebody out a few years ago because they wouldn’t pay their rent on time. Heartless too.
The only benefit to a parsonage is ninistering in a small town with no viable house market. I pastored in three small and remote rural communities. In one I had to buy my own home. The home I livwd in was tiny compared to the others. But it was all I could afford. After 5 yrs we broke even. Parsonages still serve small rural towns well.
I will have to join in on the advantages of a parsonage in certain situations. I wasn’t a pastor, but a church staff member and my first two churches both provided housing. One was in a small town in Missouri where there was nothing on the market that we would have wanted to buy and if we had owned a home there, we would not have been able to make any equity on it or sell it quickly when we moved. The rental market was almost non-existent. The church provided a nice, three bedroom home, recently renovated and they were quick to repair problems. Our second church was in a university town in Kentucky where the rental rates were sky high. The pastor had taken one of the staff houses away from the church grounds so we lived in the parsonage next door to the church and yes, I do have a couple of stories of people coming to the door in the wee hours to get married. The money we set aside while we lived there enabled us to buy a home when I moved into a different ministry related career field. The only problem with it was the self-employment tax on the rental value. The house sat three blocks from the entrance to the University and that literally doubled the rent.
We lived in a parsonage for about 5 years. It was a good experience. It was a bigger house than we needed, 4000 sq ft for our family of 4. Maintenance issues were resolved quickly. When I mentioned to the church leadership about the SECA taxes on the house, they had no idea and quickly offered to increase my salary to cover those taxes. I was glad I informed them of it. It took a while for me to bring it up, I didn’t want to sound like I was complaining. However, they were thankful I let them know about this that they weren’t even aware of.
During our time there, I was disappointed that we weren’t building equity. It was a small rural community. We moved there in 2004 and left in early 2009. For us, we would have lost any equity gained in those years due to the housing market. So, I agree with others here that in some (many) situations, for the church and community, the parsonage is a help. It certainly was to us as a newly married couple.
My father was a pastor, and I remember living in two parsonages. One was a dump, but the other was really nice. I remember my mother was upset because my father refused to talk with the search committee from Second Baptist Church in Houston. They had a brand new brick parsonage. I agree a parsonage is a blessing in a rural area. I might add to the discussion that foreign missionaries struggle with a home for retirement. Career missionaries live in housing provided by the International Mission Board, and most do not have the opportunity to purchase a house and build equity.
I have lived in two parsonages as a pastor. They worked well for us and I am grateful for how the churches took care of us. The first one shared a fenced in backyard with the Sunday School wing and was a short walking distant. My office was only 10 yards away from the parsonage. Best commute ever! It was in a small town and it would have been difficult to have sold a house whenever we left after 4 years. The second parsonage we lived in was actually owned by a neighboring Baptist church. It had transitioned from their parsonage to their missions house. They allowed us to live in it (me the pastor of another SBC church) rent free while our house was being built. They were very gracious. Only complaint I would have is in our first parsonage, sometimes transients would learn where the local pastor lived (walking distance from city hall) and would knock on my door for a hand out. It was a little scary sometimes. The church members always respected our space and the building committee maintained the parsonage well and took great pride in it.
I have lived in a parsonage, have rented, and have bought my own home. There are advantages in all three. When a church asks about my preference I try to delicately answer “Are we comparing equally?” If the Church can afford a salary large enough to buy a home, I prefer that. If they do not have a realistic understanding of their market there could be a problem. If a church says that we have a choice of a parsonage or a $300 housing allowance, that is not realistic.
I’ve served 8 churches – 2 of them as Senior Pastor and the other 6 as a staff member. I had parsonages in 2 of them. They served us well. We were thankful for them as we couldn’t have made it otherwise in those locations. However, I’m thankful now that we have been able to buy our own home. On the north side of 50 you have to start thinking more about things like equity and future. Parsonages still serve a purpose, but I understand why they are less and less a “thing”.
As a PK, I grew up in parsonages. Some were nice. Some were … unique for lack of a better term but my mom always was able to turn them into a home. Those few unique ones, we had nicknames for that reflected their uniqueness: Mouse House; Spider House; Egg Roll House (church bought the home from a Vietnamese doctor); and Titanic after the iceberg (you could put a ball on one of the House and watch it roll down the hallway).
One of the problems we faced was when the members felt the home was their house and not ours because we were merely temporary tenants. Another issue was when and if the previous pastor’s family was not as tidy as us and it was our duty to deal with it. Fun times!