Baptist Press (BP) recently posted a story about the April meeting of the trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS). The story, dated April 15, was taken from a news release written by SWBTS writer Keith Collier and posted to their website on April 11 (click here to read the release). The byline of the BP edition also credits Collier as the writer. There are some differences of phrasing throughout, but the content is otherwise identical, with one curious omission. If you read both articles, you will notice that the version posted by BP does not contain the following two paragraphs:
“The trustees received a report from the president where he provided his annual disclosure of his compensation information and entertained questions related to it and the same information for the rest of the seminary’s senior administration.
Chairman Van McClain stated that “since Southern Baptists expect that their entities supported by the Cooperative Program will be governed with integrity and accountability, I am glad the salary of the president of Southwestern has been fully and willingly disclosed to all of the trustees of the seminary, even though Dr. Patterson has refused an increase in compensation since his arrival in 2003.”
I spoke by telephone with Keith Collier, and he had no explanation for the omission. He told me that the release as it now appears on the SWBTS website has not been edited since it was posted on April 11, so it is clear that BP was deliberate in removing the paragraphs quoted above. I contacted BP by email to ask about the omission, but have received no response.
News organizations certainly are within their rights to edit anything they publish for style, length, and content. It is curious to me that they have chosen to omit this information concerning the president of the seminary, who has been relentlessly attacked for enriching himself with Cooperative Program dollars but has refused to accept even a single cost-of-living pay increase in the five years he has served at SWBTS.
The omitted information certainly does seem (to me) to be newsworthy in light of the abundant allegations in the recent past.
Bart,
Who would know the policy for releasing “all” SBC salary related information to SBC churches that participate in the cooperation? I would think that all agencies would be very generous with that data.
-Chris
Brother Chris,
First, according to how the constitution and bylaws work, the entities are answerable to the convention through their trustees. It is the trustees that are entrusted with the accountability to the convention. The president is accountable to the convention through the trustees. If the president of an entity does not allow the release of this information to the trustees, then you may request it directly from the entity. If you will remember, our Brother Ben Cole sent a letter to every entity requesting such from them. He received back from the entities various information. From SWBTS, he received no response. With this enlightening statement from the last trustee meeting at SWBTS, it seems the reason he did not receive anything from them was that Dr. Patterson already releases that to the trustees.
Brother Ben pointed us to Article XIV of the Business and Financial Plan which states;
Members of cooperating Southern Baptist churches shall have access to information from the records of Southern Baptist Convention entities regarding income, expenditures, debts, reserves, operating balances, and salary structures.
As a member of a cooperating church of the Southern Baptist Convention, you can contact the entity and request such information concerning the salary of the president if the Trustees do not already have this information. If the Trustees refuse to share with you this information then you would be free to contact the entity. I would suggest that you begin with the trustees from Tennessee to see if they have the information that you may be seeking.
That is my understanding of this, but maybe Brother Bart can give us more insight.
Blessings,
Tim
this is very interesting. dr. patterson hasnt taken a raise in five years…..his salary is open for viewing…. hummmmmm
why have we not heard this stuff at the outpost? i wonder??????? hummmmmmmm…..
david
Dr. Patterson has disclosed his compensation to the trustees? You mean they didn’t know it before? Who set his salary in the first place if it wasn’t the trustees?
The salary information of top executives of publicly traded companies is always listed in the annual report. If seems the SBC entities could do the same. We still don’t know what Dr. Patterson’s salary is.
Brother Tim,
That would be a good project to have completed before the convention ….. to get the trustees or entities information on salary structures from every entity that is funded by the SBC.
How difficult would it be for SBCToday to pull that off?
-Chris
Brother R Grannemann,
First, your response seems to imply that Dr. Patterson just made this available. From my understanding, and I know he did it at SEBTS, he makes available to every Trustee every salary of anyone employed at the entity. As to your comment; “The salary information of top executives of publicly traded companies is always listed in the annual report. It seems the SBC entities could do the same. I would suggest that you begin with the Executive Committee. I am trying to get in touch with our trustees here in NC to see if they know what Dr. Chapman’s salary is.
Brother Chris,
I would not vote for SBC Today to be involved in that type of posting. The reason would be that it is the responsibility of the Trustees, and I would hope that Trustees of the entities would know their President’s salary. If they do not, then they are negligent in their fiduciary responsibilities.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Chris,
Just a follow-up to my last statement. You have the right to contact each entity and request the same information. As a member of a cooperating SBC church you are entitled to know. Because I believe so strongly in the trustee system, I suggest that you contact the trustees first. If they know and will not share it with you, then you can rest assured that one of two things has taken place. Either they were given the information with strict orders to not release it, or they feel you do not have a right to know and thus will not tell you. Either one would cause me concern. If they tell you that they do know but refuse to surrender it to you because they fear you will try to misuse the information, then you have to respect their position. Part of their fiduciary responsibility is to protect the entity also.
Blessings,
Tim
I wonder what those who seem to think that Dr. Patterson is milking the system will now say to the fact that he has turned down a raise…for how many years?
In my book, that is leadership! May his tribe increase.
Tim, I don’t think that it is the salary package at SWBTS that has ever been anyone’s gripe with Dr. Patterson.
Financial concerns raised by his critics have had to do with issues other than his salary package (expense accounts, use of facilities, etc) and the biggest issue some have had with him is the way he uses his power, position and influence within the SBC.
Actually, before Ben Cole became so rabid in his disdain for Dr. Patterson, he was gathering and publishing the salary and expense information for entity heads. I thought it was a valuable service to the denomination.
That was then…
Brother Dave,
You write; Tim, I don’t think that it is the salary package at SWBTS that has ever been anyone’s gripe with Dr. Patterson Why, then was a request made for his salary package?
As to his “expense account”. That is handled by the Trustees, not something Dr. Patterson demands. Also, you do a great job dodging the issue? What other entities openly disclose to the trustees the salary of everyone?
Your second comment seems to be a bit vague. Are you saying that Ben or Dr. Patterson was gathering and publishing the expenses and salary of entity heads?
Blessings,
Tim
Dave,
You have missed my point. I find it odd that no one has reported that Dr. P turned down salary increases! That deserves at least a “wow”!
He just may not be the “bad” boy some think he is!
From what I understand, just about everything that relates to the Patterson’s is paid for by the seminary, including their toilet paper. And yes, there is a story there. On top of all their expenses being paid, he makes over $200,000 a year, if my memory serves me correctly. If that number is wrong, I’ll be happy to retract that. Plus, he gets paid from outside work through the Patmos Evangelistic Association. Dr. Patterson is hardly hurting for money. His salary is basically all profit.
I don’t fault him for any of that. From what I understand, that is the arrangement for pretty much all of our entity heads. If you become a entity head in the SBC, you will become a wealthy person. I find it a little funny that pastors of small churches are making sure that Dr. Patterson is applauded for not taking salary increases from SWBTS, considering what he makes to begin with. While we can all say, “good job” to the fact that he isn’t earning even MORE money, is their any discussion about how much he is making to begin with? What about the rest of our entity heads? It is a lot of money because they are seen as CEO’s of multi-million dollar corporations. I don’t begrudge them that, but I am not ready to cheer them on for not taking raises, either.
Actually, I hardly care and I wouldn’t have said anything if it had not been for Tim G wanting us to cheer Dr. Patterson for not taking raises. It’s all about perspective, I guess.
Tim G:
Maybe it is as simple as PP being able to afford not taking a raise. Most people can not afford to do that.
Before this thread begins to turn into who is a bad boy and who is a good boy, before rabid and after rabid and we all get our rifles and enlist a spotter, pick targets and determine windage and elevation; I would like to make an observation and comment totally detached from from an all day reading of the Emergent/emerging church movement trying to determine who is and who is not going to the deeper pits of hell when the end of life does emerge upon them.
If memory does not fail me (often does now days) I remember Dr. Patterson saying many times that any person from any cooperating Southern Baptist church could walk into the office and identify themselves properly and find out the salary of any employee of the institution of which he served as president at the time. I believe he lived up to that declaration during my tenure with the same institution.
My observation of Dr. Patterson’s long time position on this matter my now bring a pox upon my head from friend and foe alike, but I will just let the devil take the hindmost parts with that worry.
Observation related to this post:
The issue here is not Dr. Patterson being good or bad. It is not even the motivation of Ben Cole in publishing material on a blog post. It is not about who is on whose side and who is not.
The main issue of this post is the fact that Dr. Patterson has always stated that all financial information of SBC entities is to be open to all cooperating Southern Baptists. This post states he is still holding to that stated position.
The question to me then is who among SBC entity heads would refuse to allow any cooperating Southern Baptist to see the salaries both entity head and entity employees alike and why would they not?
cb
C.B.,
Thank you for returning this to the point of this post. While I’m glad Dr. Patterson has such an open policy regarding his own compensation, your last question goes even farther than I would want to require. I know you have had some issues with individual trustees, but you still believe in the trustee system, as do I. I would be comfortable with just being assured that all of the trustees of an entity are privy to all salary information, and find it curious that BP chose to edit out the fact that this is indeed the case at SWBTS.
I also understand that it is not the case at all of our entities, and I agree with Tim who said, in comment #7 above, “If [the trustees] do not [know the salary of the president of the entity], then they are negligent in their fiduciary responsibilities.”
Brother CB,
Bingo! You have nailed this issue. Dr. Patterson can have any outside income he so desires. It is the same with you and me as we do revivals and receive gifts from people that desire to give them to us. He has his salary information available for all trustees to see and examine. What entity head is not doing the same. What trustees of various entities do not know what their president earns in salary?
Brother Alan,
You need to produce evidence on your numbers. Where did you get the salary amount? Did you get it from a Trustee at SWBTS? If so, that would be verification enough for me as I know that you are an honorable man. With, that I ask that you contact a Trustee at other entities to see if they know what their president makes.
Dr. Patterson has been painted by you as one that is living off of the CP given by Churches and loosely spending that income. His salary is before all the trustees and he has refused raises. Have you ever had him come to your church to speak? Why not ask him? I know for a fact that he does not require a certain level of attendance or a set honorarium to come.
Brother Tom Parker,
Have you contacted a Trustee with SWBTS to find if that is the case for Dr. Patterson? Or are you just espousing some kind of sour grapes?
Blessings,
Tim
I read this string with interest. I am currently a student at SWBTS and have observed Dr Patterson for the better part of two years. I also worked with another agency head in a peripheral capacity.
Prior to that, I spent my earlier days as a CPA and CFO, observing on a regular basis what people made at every level.
The one vein I want to lay to rest is that if you want to get rich, climb to the top of a SBC entity. Dr Patterson’s caliber is equivalent to people who make $400,000 to $800,000 in the open market. The other agency head would probably settle in on the lower end of that range. They make a fraction of that serving the denomination. I am grateful for the sacrifice that they have made in providing leadership to our agencies.
Tim,
If you will reread my comment, I am not trying to paint anything in any light. I clearly said that the $200,000 was the number that I remembered from information passed around over a year ago. It would be impossible to find it and if it is wrong, I will gladly withdraw. I am not trying to be sly by just throwing a number out there and I am also not trying to be dogmatic about it. That is just the number that I recall from reading about this stuff for a couple of years now. For some reason, that number is in my head, but I can’t find my car keys presently. So, I would gladly trade information!
I also made no judgment as to how Dr. Patterson is spending his income, loosely or otherwise. He might be giving it all to missions. I have no idea. But, I do know that almost all of his expenses that he encounters in life, including anything to do with his house, down to the toilet paper, is paid for by CP dollars. Again, I said that I was sure that that was the arrangement for other entity heads, especially seminary presidents – so, no criticism of that.
If you reread my comment, I was not trying to be critical of Dr. Patterson on this issue. Actually, I think that his situation is probably similar to the situation of others. My only point was just to say that applauding him when he has not taken a raise is fine, but the whole story might suggest that he is in an excellent financial position to do so. It doesn’t mean that he isn’t a swell guy for turning down raises, but when everything else is taken care of, it causes things to look a little different.
I am actually not judging him. The whole story just causes me to judge us a little – considering the big picture, why is this something that we are making a big deal out of? I know another minister in my city that I am good friends with. He hasn’t had a raise in 4 years either. The difference is, he is barely making it and there is not the money to give him a cost of living increase. Yet, he faithfully serves. I guess he was on my mind when we were being encouraged to praise Dr. Patterson for this.
Michael,
I guess that getting rich is relative. In my world, $200,000 a year and all expenses paid is living large. I am grateful that our entity heads do not make the money of secular CEO’s. But, if I were to make almost a quarter million a year, I would likely have a very different lifestyle than I have right now. Again, that’s not a criticism of anyone, but from where I’m sitting, our entity heads and also mega church pastors in the SBC are becoming wealthy people for the work that they do. I don’t begrudge them that, but the facts are the facts.
While I think that it is great that Dr. Patterson has turned down raises, I just wanted to bring some realism in by saying that all over this land tonight, there are Southern Baptist pastors who are working faithfully and cannot put food on the table. Their wives are having to work and leave their children in day care, just to be able to survive. Many of these pastors are also working other jobs, but they are low paying jobs so that they have time to give to the ministry. We all know this to be true. I think that the fact that Dr. Patterson has denied raises is pertinent information into his character and I am glad to have it. I just think that our applause on this type of issue should go in another direction when you look at the big picture.
But, then again, I’ve hung out with CB and Tim Rogers a little and I’m getting more and more stubborn. :)
Tim Rogers:
I don’t have no grapes, not no sour ones either.
Brother Alan,
What would be a fair salary for Dr. Patterson? Also, have you checked to see what Dr. Chapman makes? I mean if you do not care to see our entity heads making such salaries, why are you honed in on Dr. Patterson’s? Check with the other entities to see what their heads make.
I feel for the pastor that you described. I understand the struggles and hardships that he endures. However, I certainly do not envy someone else that has a larger salary than I do. I am not envious of any entity head’s salary. My point is that Dr. Patterson openly makes his salary available for his trustees. He also has not received, as much as a cost of living raise since 2003. We have been led to believe that Dr Patterson is living off the CP and has this exorbitant salary and perks. He has no more perks than any other entity head. The differences between the seminary Presidents is that they live in the Seminary house. I know that Dr. Roberts at MBTS has his own home and they use the Presidential house for something else. However, he receives a housing. One simple IRS guideline that we keep forgetting is that the Presidential Manor is the same as a parsonage. Whatever the fair market value of that house is, the person residing there pays 15% in SSI taxes, that is unless they have opted out of SSI.
My point, and the point of this article, is that Dr. Patterson has been painted as someone that is living exorbitantly off of SB CP giving. He has been painted by some as making an exorbitant salary and hiding his income so others will not know. We have an article that was picked up by BP and run with every thought in tact except this portion about Dr. Patterson’s salary and how he has not received a raise since 2003. The BP removed this from the middle of the article and gave complete credit to the person the original author, making it appear as if there was no editing. My question from the start has been and continues to be; Why? Why was this removed from the middle of this article? Why was this not newsworthy. It seems that these questions may not be answered by the ones that placed the article out as news. They have been contacted and have yet to respond.
Brother Tom,
Seeing the grape issue is clear. Are you saying that you have contacted a SWBTS Trustee?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim:
Please help me–you say–”Are you saying that you have contacted a SWBTS Trustee?”. Why do I need to contact them?
Tim:
Please help me–you say–”Are you saying that you have contacted a SWBTS Trustee?”. Why do I need to contact them?
Tim:
Please help me–you say–”Are you saying that you have contacted a SWBTS Trustee?”. Why do I need to contact them?
Tim,
I think it would serve best to major on why information was left out of the article, by whom and why.
Alan Cross is not in left field here and it serves no purpose to chastise him or to make an effort to make his observations void.
This comment thread should not be used to vindicate anyone or to make a villain of anyone who questions you in doing so.
Major on the specific problem at hand. Why do some refuse to let the SBC as a whole know their salaries?
This other stuff has been hashed so long it is now an embarrassment to try to find new ways to attack or defend the situation.
The subject of your post is worthy of investigation without being sidetracked or derailed by other obsessions.
Some seem to have an obsession to attack and others seem to have an obsession to defend Paige Patterson. Both have gone too far and at too great a cost to the advancement of the Kingdom
cb
Chris Johnson,
Bro. Tim has given you the correct information. I suggest that, if you have the inclination to do so, you contact trustees for the six seminaries, the two mission boards, the ERLC, and a member of the Executive Committee and find out whether they respectively know the salaries of Drs. Akin, Mohler, Kelley, Roberts, Patterson, Iorg, Rankin, Hammond, Land, and Chapman. Then ask how you can become privy to that number.
BTW, if you encounter any among that group who have not been given access to the salary of their respective entity head, that would be great informaiton for you to relay to the rest of us.
Tim, reread my comments. I am not attacking Dr. Patterson. I have said repeatedly that his salary is likely in line with other entity heads. I heard back in the mid-90′s that Morris Chapman was making around $200,000, although no one wanted that information public. I was staying out of this comment stream because I found it boring until Tim Guthrie said that we should be applauding Dr. Patterson for not taking raises. I disagree with that a little considering context. If you are making a couple of hundred thousand a year and all your expenses are paid, denying a raise is hardly a sacrfice. I’m glad he did it and I DO think that it speaks to his character. I’m just not jumping up and down about it. Put that on me if that makes me a bad guy. If Morris Chapman were the topic of this post, I would have felt the same way. Or, Jerry Rankin or anyone else. But, they weren’t.
As to why BP left this part out, I have no idea. I don’t read BP very much. I get my Southern Baptist news here. :)
Brother Alan,
First, thank you for acknowledging our news worthiness–NOT! :)
Second, you write; If Morris Chapman were the topic of this post, I would have felt the same way….
As to why BP left this part out, I have no idea. Who do you think is the boss at BP?
Blessings,
Tim
Thanks Bart,
I’ll see if I can get some interest….
-Chris
Brother CB,
Thanks for the advice. I think you know that I will not stand idly by and watch people go after Dr. Patterson needlessly.
And, hey, you know what really gets under my skin about this entire thing? There are 5 people here at SBC Today that have never held an office within leadership of the SBC and really have no desires to hold such offices. There are numerous people out there that have cozied up to Dr. Patterson for no other reason but to get their advancement. They have used him on their resume and have made certain they were in the right place at the right time. However, I find myself in a situation of trying to set the record straight when I saw the man work under conditions at SEBTS that many would have run from. He came in with less than 400 FTE students and had to operate without assurance of funding % being cut for CP allocations. Buildings in need of repair and desperately needed new buildings. Little to no endowments and people calling him every thing you can imagine. Where are the voices of those that he went to bat for? Where are those nobodies when he found them and mentored them to positions of influence? And here I am challenging Allan Cross, a dear brother, when others out there could speak up and end this mess.
Oh, I am not mad, just frustrated today.
You are correct, this is not about Dr. Patterson. Why would the information be pulled out of the middle of the article. Who authorized it to be pulled? Why can we not get answers when we ask?
Blessings,
Tim
Wow, Tim. You have often floated some interesting conspiracy theories. This one is right up there.
Are you saying that Morris Chapman orchestrated this article to cast Paige Patterson in a negative light related to his salary? That the negative feelings toward Dr. Patterson are flowing from ExComm? Now, if SBCToday is breaking THAT story, then you can see why I come here to get my SBC news.
I’m almost never disappointed when I visit here. ;)
Perhaps there are some employees of Baptist Press (or others who are also under the supervision of the Executive Committee) who would not want anyone to read about Dr. Patterson’s openness and say exactly as we are, that every entity should be very open about their financial dealings as well.
We have given trustees the responsibility of leading our entities and nothing about those entities should be hidden from any of them.
Tim,
I just read your comment to CB after I posted mine. I can see your perspective regarding Dr. Patterson more clearly. I want you to know that I have no ax to grind against Dr. Patterson. I do not desire to attack him over his salary. Salary structures are one area that I fully entrust to trustee boards. Whatever they want to pay him is fine with me. That goes for all of the entity heads. I really don’t care. I might think it is too much, but if a trustee board makes that decision, I figure that the SBC can handle that if they disagree. If not, I’m not going to lose much sleep. It’s just money.
Again, when you consider how much he DOES make, the sacrifice of not taking raises is less impressive. That is not a criticism of Dr. Patterson. He did not ask to be praised over that. I am not disagreeing with him. I am disagreeing, only slightly, with Tim Guthrie – not because refusing a raise is not a noble thing, but because when you make a large salary, it is not as big a deal.
Just my opinion. It’s really not much of an issue.
But, if what you guys were getting at is the idea that Morris Chapman and/or ExComm is altering BP articles to make Paige Patterson look like a money grubber, or to cast him in any other type of negative light, come out and say it. I didn’t get the point of the post here until just now. THAT is something that we can debate and talk about and maybe do a little investigation into.
I don’t like yellow journalism either, whether it comes from BP or any other source. Let’s put all the facts on the table.
Are you saying that Morris Chapman and ExComm is engaging in a propaganda campaign against Dr. Patterson?
That should be “are” instead of “is.” My subject/ verb agreement is lacking today.
I, for one, would be interested to know why only this portion of the article was ommitted. There may be a valid reason. If there is, I hope that reason will be shared with the rest of us.
Brother Tim,
It would appear to me that the President of the SBC should have the ability to weigh in on these stewardship issues within the agencies of the SBC and its contributors. The SBC would benefit greatly from a full disclosure of how its leadership is paid. That certainly would not mean that all salaries throughout the organization would need to be revealed in a specific manner (amounts to noses), but it would be edifying for those of the churches that contribute to the SBC to know and be confident of how financial matters are conducted on a general scale. Publishing the range of salary for servants within the SBC down to the “Director” level in all agencies would be very instructive and would announce to its constituents the seriousness of its commitment to Christ.
The amounts that leaders are paid will always be questioned, whether the rates of remuneration are large or small, and with especially more focus within religious institutions. There is probably some fear within the SBC leadership to release such figures, since the average family unit within the SBC probably nets less than $60,000 per year (husband and wife combined). But, the entire body will be edified if the SBC is wise enough to explain and justify the remuneration. That is a risk that a Godly leader must be willing to take!
Maybe the next President can make that part of his platform for stewardship?
Blessings,
Chris
Tim,
You have stated many, many hard truths on posts and comment threads. That is a fact. It is also true you have been wrong on some things and that is a fact. It is also a fact that I have been wrong just as often or more.
But, today in your comment #29 you have stated a truth that will not be refuted honestly by anyone, anywhere. You are right. Much could be settled if certain individuals were not so concerned with preserving their positions, power and prosperity.
Alan,
Let the post stand for itself. Let the proper questions fall at the feet of those of whom they should.
Let the Patterson issues rest here. We “all” have ridden that to death from every perspective. Don’t let the fact that BP published an article relating to the trustee meeting of SWBTS be the questionable factor here, because it is not.
The question is why was a specific part of the report left out and why? That subject matter has been screaming for a revealing dialogue for years. Let it happen without going to the lightning rod names of Paige Patterson and Ben Cole. That will only muddy the waters.
The issue is why not release the whole of the news release as Collier wrote it? Why the unnecessary edit?
cb
it is very stange that one, short paragraph would be left out. i’d like to know the answer to this one myself.
david
Since the missing portion of the article is about salary and compensation and most of the comment threads express one opinion or another around this matter I would like to propose an additional question.
What is the proper salary for an entity head or even a local Pastor?
I often ask this same question when I hear people complain about salaries of CEO’s. If they are brave enough to suggest an actual dollar amount I usually follow up by asking what the maximum amount they themselves should be allowed to earn.
By the way, no nebulous answer like “…something commensurate with the incomes of the people they serve…” If that would work all a poor struggling Pastor would have to do to get a raise is rent a house in a pricier part of town!
If we don’t have a “baseline” to compare compensation packages to why do we even need to know the salary packages of entity heads?
Bloginafog,
If you owned a business, would you hire a manager without knowing what you were going to pay him/her? What if you had a business manager who was in charge of personnel for your business and even that business manager did not know what your manager was making?
The folks paying the salary have a right to know how much they are paying. I have no qualms with publishing my salary in our church’s financial report which is handed out every month at business meeting. Some of my people may think I earn too much, others too little, but it is their right to know. If they ever want to relinquish that oversight to a personnel or finance committee then so be it, but at least those committees should know. My concern is that we are paying salaries with Cooperative Program funds and our trustees of our entities should be able to access salary information for the people they are to have oversight of.
I begrudge no one a healthy salary. Actually, I wish we would raise salaries at many of our institutions. I am merely concerned that by not opening ourselves to scrutiny we are opening ourselves to criticism. An unwillingness to reveal figures makes some wonder what is being hidden.
Matt,
I agree with you. I just know by experience that whever the issue comes up selfishness can arise in all of us to compare others salaries to our own.
In my opinion these figures should be so readily available that no one has to call a trustee or an entity to get them.
Blessings
Brother Tim,
It seems from this brief conversation that the structures of the SBC entities that serve its churches are actually not able or not willing to fully disclose each penny of their budgets.
Titus 1:5-9 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, (6) namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. (7) For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, (8) but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, (9) holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
All of the men and women associated with and serving the agencies of the SBC are under the authority of local churches. I am assuming that the local authority is given in and through the proxy of the board of trustees and other boards representing those that serve in any of the seminaries or agencies. There should be absolute transparency of information coming from these servant institutions at all times; because the trustees (by proxy) are Gods stewards of the every penny collected from the churches.
If the overseer of a local congregation is having difficulty dealing with and knowing the compensation of certain individuals that serve the SBC, then they are probably disqualified from overseeing any congregation,… because they are not free from the love of money. It should be of some importance for the leadership in the churches to understand how all SBC dollars are being spent.
1 Timothy 3:1-6 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. (2) An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, (3) not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
Why do you suppose this is such a gray area for the SBC? It sounds like no one has tried to change how these numbers are reported out to the churches. Why is this such a mystery?
Blessings,
Chris
Tim:
I ask again–Tim:
Please help me–you say–”Are you saying that you have contacted a SWBTS Trustee?”. Why do I need to contact them?
Tim:
I ask again–Tim:
Please help me–you say–”Are you saying that you have contacted a SWBTS Trustee?”. Why do I need to contact them?
Tim:
I ask again–Tim:
Please help me–you say–”Are you saying that you have contacted a SWBTS Trustee?”. Why do I need to contact them?
Bloginafogpastor,
You make an excellent point. After all, covetousness is part of the top ten list in Exodus 20 isn’t it? I am sure there will always be some who would use envy to denigrate someone merely based on the size of the salary they accept. It is natural for any of us to get overly concerned with the wealth of this world and who does or does not have it.
For me personally, I am willing to accept any potential scorn my salary figures might ever invite. It matters little to me whether temporal salary figures bring anyone envy or laughter. I am much more concerned about the eternal ramifications. Being above reproach is worth a lot more than a little privacy.
chris,
many entity heads at the national level and at the state level do not want people to know how much they make for several reasons…..
1) people will have a very large cow if they knew just how much some of these folks are making per year….especially if you add in the perks.
2)they’re afraid that people will not want to give to the cp and the special offerings if the common man in the pew…who may be making $30,000 to $60,000 per year sees entity heads making $200,000 to 450,000 per year. it’s kind of hard to “dig deeper” into the ole pockets when you are barely paying bills and the heads of these entities are living in mansions and driving in brand new cars every year, etc.
also, my salary is open for any and every member to see. why should not the entity heads do the same?
david
David,
For once, you and I are in complete agreement. I couldn’t have said it better myself. You nailed it regarding the reasons why no one wants those numbers out there. At least, that is my opinion. What other reason could there be?
Anyone want to co-sponsor a resolution this year calling for transparency? It could be a bipartisan effort from both sides of the aisle in Blogtown.
It could start with an appeal to follow the leadership of Dr. Patterson and SWBTS! How ironic would that be?
:)
Brother David,
It shouldn’t be any other way…… If the SBC agency heads and executive management are not open to that minimum of scrutiny, they should be fired. The agency heads should be demanding that their compensations be posted for all fellow believers and we should rejoice at how the funds are distributed to the glory of God. It seems to be a bit disingenuous to encourage your fellow believers to give to the CP and not then not demonstratively disclose in detail where all the funds are being distributed.
The SBC leadership could use financial accountability as a great opportunity to show fellow believers their commitment to the ministry of the word and their stewardship to God.
Thank you for being open and accountable with your fellow saints in ministry.
Blessings,
Chris
Talking about this subject is something of role-reversal for pastors, I think. I’ve always believed, taught, and tried to practice a strict bifurcation of responsibilities with regard to pastoral compensation:
1. It is my responsibility to be thankful and express my gratitude for whatever the church provides to me. I try to do so vocally, sincerely, and frequently. I try to remind my church regularly that I would gladly be their pastor for much less money. It is also my job to serve the Lord with all of my heart and efforts regardless of what I receive. I should never be able to say honestly, “I would do more if they would pay me more.” (NOTE: That last statement presumes that I am full-time already. If I am bivocational, obviously I could say honestly that I would do more for the church if my time were not divided between the church and another job, and there’s nothing wrong with that sentiment) We are not hirelings.
2. It is the church’s job to take care of those who serve it spiritually, and I think that it is their job to do so generously. They will answer to God for what they do in this regard. There are limits to what they can do, but they ought to do what they can and to do it with a cheerful and grateful heart, recognizing that the spiritual things provided by a biblical pastor are far more valuable than any money that they can provide to him.
So, when it comes to dealing with denominational employees, we pastors who are accustomed to being in category 1, with its responsibilities, are actually in category 2, with its responsibilities.
That’s why I’ve tried to be an advocate for seminary professor salaries. Most of us pastors are spiritually indebted to seminary professors. We’d better be careful to be diligent about sharing material things with them. Ditto with regard to our entity heads.
Certainly, we have a commensurate responsibility to hold them accountable to their calling. Let us help them to remain anchored to the Word and focused upon their tasks. But let us be generous in sharing back with them.
Bart,
I agree with you on this. I don’t lose any sleep over what our entity heads make. I am fine with paying them generously. I have no idea what kind of pressure they are under or what kind of skill, wisdom, maturity, and experience it takes to lead an SBC entity. I think that they should be duly compensated for the work that they do in serving all of us. And, I include Dr. Patterson in that.
I just wonder about why it is necessary to withhold what they make. We can find out what Fortune 500 company CEO’s make. We can find out what politicians make. Why the secrecy? Perhaps they recognize the immaturity of Southern Baptists on this issue and they fear that it would be a stumbling block to them. Fair enough, and I don’t necessarily disagree. It just seems like that we are better off with transparency, or at least with it being possible for people to know.
But, as for me, I really don’t care. They can all make $500,000 a year and I don’t care. I figure that if God blesses them with that, or if their trustees think that is what they should make, then I am fine with that. I actually trust the trustees on this issue! It just causes a little heartburn that you can’t find out what they make even if you want to. I don’t want to know, but I can see where the information is important for public disclosure purposes.
And you are right: What we pay our seminary professors is shameful.
I can see fully why Baptist Press would not have published those 2 paragraphs.
If Southwestern wasn’t willing to state Patterson’s salary in the story — as the story should have — then what’ the point? Those paragraphs, without the salary, are useless and poor journalism. Imagine an Associated Press reporter covering that board meeting and not putting the actual salary in there.
If you give me a $200,000 a year salary, I’ll be glad o forgo a raise for, say, 20 years.
This cuts both ways.
We need to be careful about conspiracies here, and I think Joe makes a very, very good point.
Let’s say Southwestern refused to put Patterson’s salary in the story, even after BP asked for it. Then they should have cut those two paragraphs.
With of without this controversy, those 2 paragraphs are pointless and very unhelpful.
Stating that you have turned down a salary increase means something only if we know the salary (which the Southwestern version of story does not provide). A story about a person who makes $30,000 and who turns down a salary increase is different from a story about a person who makes $200,000 and does the same.
Dr. Patterson should be commended for that, yes, but the BP version of the story is better, simply because the Southwestern version raises a huge question — What does he make? — and leaves it unanswered.
ALL,
Okay, now who is doing the best Job as President of a Southern Baptist Seminary? ROI = Return on Investment. How much is spent on Education by each Seminary per Student. We need the enrollment Figures for the following Seminaries as listed in the Baptist Press.
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
A $36,987,017 seminary budget was approved for the 2008-09 fiscal year, a 2.4 percent increase over the current year. “”This is hidden in the news article”",
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27839
Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary trustees adopted a 2008-09 budget of $10,473,000, up 3.4 percent from the current year, during their April 7-8 meeting at the seminary’s Northern California campus in Mill Valley.
2nd phase of SEBTS fundraising approved
In other action, trustees approved a $21.3 million budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year and elected three new faculty members.
NOBTS TRUSTEES: New initiatives approved
NOBTS President Chuck Kelley
The trustees also:– approved a budget of $19,540,305 for the coming fiscal year.
In His Name
Wayne
Alan,
You presume in your comment that you cannot find out what they make. Have you tried?
Franklin,
I don’t think knowing the actual figure is the point. Those two paragraphs were helpful to me by letting me know that the trustees responsible for oversight actually have the information about what they are overseeing. It lets readers know that the system of checks and balances is working, at least at Southwestern. It gives me all the more confidence that our church’s contribution to the CP is being guarded by duly elected trustees at Southwestern. I look forward to the day that BP runs an article stating that all of our other entities are letting their trustees have that information as well.
Wayne,
So, what do you not like about Midwestern? I am certain that was just an oversight. Do you realize they just received a substantial gift for a chair and institute for the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins…and…
The board approved a 2008-09 budget of $7,290,760, an increase of nearly $1 million over the current year. It includes appropriations for a 10 percent salary increase — 3 percent for cost of living increases, 5 percent for merit raises and 2 percent to adjust salary deficiencies. (BP)
Just hate to see the school in my town left out in whatever point you seem to be not trying to make.
Sola Gratia!
Scot,
Did Not see their budject in BP,
thanks for Sharing.
In His Name
Wayne
Yet again, Bart, the fact that it takes a treasure map and a series of clues that makes National Treasure look tame to navigate the labyrinth of the SBC completely proves my point. This information is not readily available. Why? No one in the blogosphere knows it. It is the Holy Grail of Baptist life. There are rumors of it existing, but no one has actually seen the information. I tend to think that some type of Masonic initiation is necessary to actually know what our entity heads make. Perhaps your eyes will burn out upon viewing the information.
In reality, it should not be that hard to know. The only thing that keeps me from finding out is that I don’t care, as I have already stated. But, I do think that it should be made available to someone who does care.
Joe,
I just re-read your comment. I would not expect Baptist Press to try and use the same standards as the Associated Press, but then I also would not expect Baptist Press to use the same tactics as the Associated Baptist Press. In this case, I think they fall into the latter category.
I welcome a response from them. As I said before, there may have been a genuine reason for the omission, but until they respond I am left to wonder about why, just as I wonder why their chief boss does not disclose his salary to the Executive Committee. Yes, I checked. They have asked for the information and have been rebuffed. Could that be the reason BP omitted the paragraphs.
I’ll just throw this in, without anything to back it up. I’m an IMB M and have heard through the grapevine that Jerry Rankin currently makes the same amount that he would if he had stayed on the field, except without the overseas cost of living adjustment (but with time-in-service increases, of course). I don’t know if that’s actually the case, but, having met Dr. Rankin, a humble and down-to-earth kind of guy, I certainly believe it’s possible. I’m sure that his travel budget is huge, but I don’t think any sane person would consider Dr. Rankin’s travel schedule a perk! Being the “CEO” of any of our SBC entities is a tremendous responsibility and I’m sure it is also at times a great burden. I certainly don’t want to add to that burden by being critical of their compensation or suggesting that it is information that should be more widely available and discussed (especially on blogs!).
-Katie
Brother’s Franklin & Joe,
As one of the owners of the blog, whenever one comments without a blog, I always like to check to make certain that those who comment are legitimate. You two have given good email addresses and seem to be legit. However, I did notice something curious. You are both at the same IP and that is found in Nashville. Could it be that you are with BP and are trying to give us the reason? Is that what you are doing?
Blessings,
Tim
Sister Katie,
I have heard the same thing about Dr. Rankin’s salary. I believe that if you contact a Trustee you will find that they know the salary of their President. That is not what this is about. No one believes that our President’s salary should be broadcast across the blogosphere. I would be completely against something like that. However, I believe that the Trustees that we elect as a convention hold a fiduciary responsibility to know what the President of their entity earns.
Blessings,
Tim
Katie,
It’s not much backup, as I’m relying on memory as well, but as I recall, Dr. Rankin’s salary is significantly higher than what he received as a regional leader, but he donates the difference to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering each year. Perhaps someone who knows will verify, but this is indeed commendable, if true.
Tim,
The trustees I’ve talked with tell me that only the trustee officers of the IMB are given specific information on executive compensation.
Bart,
I agree with you about your earlier comments about bifurcation. I want you to know, though, that beano can really help with that.
Alan,
We should write a new screenplay – National Treasure 3. There would be a series of clues leading to the information on the salaries of entity heads in the SBC.
Ben Cole could star.
Why do you think?
If that is true about Dr. Rankin, that is indeed something that should be applauded. The fact that it is not broadcast or widely known is another reason for kudos to go his way.
I can see what Tim is saying. The fact that the trustees know is good enough, I guess. There really is no reason for the masses to be able to chew on the salaries of SBC entity heads. That’s what we have trustees for, right?
Brother Wes,
I stand corrected. I thought the trustees discussed things like that in their Executive Sessions. Thanks for the correction.
Also, I agree with what you said to Sister Katie about the way Dr. Rankin does his salary. That is commendable. At the same time the Trustees need to be aware of what they are approving for his salary. What he does with it is his business and if he is giving the difference to Lottie Moon he certainly should be commended.
Brother Alan,
Can you imagine what it would be like to try and discuss whether or not someone deserves what amount? Shoot, we cannot agree on whether or not CB looks like John Mahoney. :) We can trust the Trustee system.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I agree. By and large, I do trust the trustee system. The only issue that I can think of where I have had major disagreement is regarding the IMB policies because they went beyond the BF&M without any type of consensus permission on a doctrinal issue that kept otherwise qualified missionaries off the field. I bring that up because I believe that the trustees should have wide ranging powers within the realm that they have been granted. Salaries are a perfect example. When they cross that line, as I believe they did in the IMB case, that is where some further accountability is needed. So, I do trust the trustees – up to a point. I’m just one who believes that their authority should be more closely derived from the Convention instead of being inherent in and of itself.
But, I digress . . .
Tim,
The “trustee system” I trust; Always have. I know it works.
It is this new breed of BOOT-STRAPPIN’, BALONEY-EATER trustees that I do not trust…and with good reason.
cb
Tim:
I ask for the third time–Tim:
Please help me–you say–”Are you saying that you have contacted a SWBTS Trustee?”. Why do I need to contact them?
Tim,
I don’t know who Joe or Franklin are, but they make legitimate points.
If Dr. Patterson disclosed his salary to the trustees, then that should be included in the story. Otherwise, the information is (I think it was said before) useless. What good is it to know that he hasn’t been given a raise if he makes, say, $10 billion (which he doesn’t, but I’m just making a point here). It’s like saying, “The Georgia Bulldogs added 2 games to their 2009 football schedule” without telling us who those two teams are. It’s poor journalism.
And, there are, what 5 million Southern Baptists in Nashville? It’s possible that Joe and Franklin aren’t among the 10 or so employees at Baptist Press. They could even be two guys, in the same room, typing on the same computer. Imagine.
Thanks for listening.
Brother Tom,
I figured you were able to understand. In your original statement you write; Maybe it is as simple as PP being able to afford not taking a raise. I asked how you knew that as a fact. You said it was not sour grapes speaking, so I felt the only other way you would be able to make such a statement was to find out for yourself. Dr. Patterson makes that information available to the Trustees. Therefore, I asked if you contacted a Trustee. So, I ask again. Have you contacted a Trustee to find out Dr. Patterson’s salary, that he has not received a raise on since 2003?
Brother Alan,
We have ridden this horse before. However, he is back in my corral so I will saddle him up again. As the song goes; Saddle-up your horses. :)
NAMB passed the same policy on tongues back in 1987 and no one anywhere complained. We had some NAMB personnel to speak out, but not many. The IMB makes their tongues policy stronger and the Chairman is accused of Landmarkism and every other theological fear mongering tactic that can be imagined. You write that you disagree with the IMB trustees making that guideline because they went beyond the BF&M without any type of consensus permission on a doctrinal issue… It seems that a policy that has been on the books for over 15 years gives one consensus permission.
Brother James,
It makes no difference whether one make $100k or $10k per year. If someone has not received a raise in their salary in 5 years, that is newsworthy. Especially if that someone has been castigated and maligned as getting rich off of the backs of others.
Also, it is possible that our two Brother’s Joe and Franklin aren’t among the 10 or so employees at Baptist Press. There are more that 10 employees in the building where Baptist Press is housed. Also, their silence certainly yells loudly.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim G:
Maybe it is as simple as PP being able to afford not taking a raise. Most people can not afford to do that.
I stand by my statement above. You are obviously are trying to be arguementive–I am not.
tom,
everytime i see you comment you seem to be very arguementative.
david
007:
It takes one to know one.
tom,
see what i mean. all of your comments seem to be very negative and arguementative. you seem to always be saying something smarty, or attacking.
david
For the record I am retired and my son, Joe, got me hooked up to the internet a few weeks ago. I don’t understand why everyone has to be so conspiratorial. My “silence” has been because I’ve been outside, working in the garden.
007:
I did exactly what you wanted me to. You set the bait and I took it. So if it makes you feel better I confess I am arguementative. That is I do argue my viewpoint.
007:
I did exactly what you wanted me to. You set the bait and I took it. So if it makes you feel better I confess I am arguementative. That is I do argue my viewpoint.
007:
I did exactly what you wanted me to. You set the bait and I took it. So if it makes you feel better I confess I am arguementative. That is I do argue my viewpoint.
007:
I likewise find most of your comments to be negative, but I guess I can live with them.
007:
I likewise find most of your comments to be negative, but I guess I can live with them.
007:
I likewise find most of your comments to be negative, but I guess I can live with them.
A correction is in order. In comment 62, I stated that only the trustee leadership of the IMB had specific knowledge of the salaries of the top IMB executives. I have recently learned, having been informed by one who is in a position to know that the entire board votes each year to approve those numbers.
I apologize for any confusion my comment may have caused, and for correcting Tim. Turns out he was right [insert colloquialism involving blind squirrel and acorn here].
;)
It is not the salary that we should be concerned about. It is the ‘expense’ items that need to be watched. What personal items, such as taxidermy bills, is the seminary paying for? Office redecorating, portraits, etc.
All this stuff is usually buried in budgets. How much of a spending budget does he have for travel? Is all this travel on seminary business ONLY?