Anyone who has ever served as pulpit supply will be familiar with the post-service ritual: Someone you do not know approaches, thanks you for preaching, and hands you a white envelope with your name written on it. You express your thanks and put it away to open later.
You know that it contains a check, but until you open the envelope, however, you have no idea how much the check is for. If you have served as a minister, elder, or deacon, you have probably been on one side or the other of this exchange.
As a PCA teaching elder serving full time as a military chaplain, my family has belonged to five Presbyterian and Reformed churches. As I have supplied the pulpit in more than two dozen congregations across several Reformed denominations, I’ve experienced a huge range in what churches pay for pulpit supply.
Twelve years ago, when I was a relatively new minister, a church in Virginia regularly paid me $250 to preach. Recently, after supplying the pulpit at a church on the West Coast, I opened the envelope and found the same amount. The second church was in a considerably more expensive part of the country, and more than a decade had passed, but the honorarium had not changed.
More important than the amount in the envelope is how little conversation ordinarily surrounds it. Many ministers may accept a customary amount without asking whether it reflects the labor involved. The church, in turn, may take the minister’s willingness to serve as evidence that the amount is adequate, even though neither party has discussed it.
Most sessions want to treat guest preachers fairly, yet many have inherited a customary amount without asking what it represents or whether it still reflects the labor involved.
What principle should churches use to determine a fair honorarium?
No Bible passage establishes a fee schedule for pulpit supply. Scripture does, however, establish the principle that those who labor in the ministry of the Word should receive material support:
“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages’” (1 Timothy 5:17–18).
Paul’s second citation recalls Jesus’ instructions when he sent out the 72 to proclaim the kingdom of God. They were to remain in the homes where they were received, “eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages” (Luke 10:7). Jesus described this material provision as more than acts of hospitality, but as wages for the work he had sent them to perform.
Paul makes the connection even more explicit in 1 Corinthians 9:11: “If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?”
Spiritual ministry produces no material product that can be priced or sold, and its value cannot be measured by ordinary market standards. That may make material compensation seem less natural than it does for other kinds of work. Scripture nevertheless teaches us to regard the ministry of the Word as real labor carrying a rightful claim to material support.
Compensation requires deliberation.
Presbyterian churches have long treated ministerial compensation as an ecclesiastical concern. A formal call in the PCA requires the congregation to state what it will provide so that the minister “may be free from worldly cares and avocations,” and presbytery must approve the terms. Compensation is thus placed before the congregation and the broader church for deliberate consideration.
The PCA also provides practical guidance. Geneva Benefits Group publishes call-package resources addressing salary, retirement, insurance, and pastoral well-being, while other Presbyterian denominations provide similar tools and surveys. These resources reflect a sound principle: ministerial compensation should be informed by objective considerations rather than inherited custom.
While pulpit supply does not require the full compensation analysis appropriate to a pastoral call, it does deserve some deliberation. Sessions should adopt a written policy establishing an objective baseline, ordinary adjustments, travel reimbursements, regular review, and advance communication of the honorarium.
What is a church actually paying for?
How a session answers this question will largely determine what it considers fair compensation. Is the church paying only for 30 minutes of public speaking? Does the value of the work depend entirely upon how many hours the minister spent preparing that particular sermon?
Perhaps an analogy will help. Two of my children take private music lessons. Each lesson costs $40 for 30 minutes. Like most parents, I understand that I am not paying only for 30 minutes of the teacher’s time. I am paying for the skill and judgment that enable the teacher to use those 30 minutes well.
Preaching is not a commercial service, so the comparison is limited. But the same distinction applies. A church is not paying only for the time a minister spends in the pulpit. It is compensating him for the preparation required to preach faithfully, competence acquired through years of study and ministry, and the responsibility of publicly proclaiming God’s Word.
Supplying a pulpit also requires a minister to set aside time from his ordinary calling, household, and other lawful responsibilities. The Westminster Larger Catechism recognizes both diligence in one’s calling and the proper care of one’s own outward estate as duties of the Eighth Commandment (WLC 141). The time given to pulpit supply therefore has a real cost, even when it is given willingly.
What should guide the amount?
No formula can determine the precise value of a sermon or account for every circumstance. Any useful benchmark must account for substantial regional differences. Churches already recognize this when determining ministerial compensation. Geneva Benefits Group, for example, publishes a housing allowance worksheet to help churches estimate the housing component of a minister’s compensation. The worksheet reflects a basic reality: the same salary does not provide the same level of support in every housing market. For occasional pulpit supply, however, sessions need a simpler locality measure that can be applied consistently without conducting a full compensation analysis.
One readily available housing index is the Department of Defense Basic Allowance for Housing. BAH is calculated from local rental and utility costs, updated annually, and available through a ZIP-code lookup. Although it does not measure the value of a sermon or provide a complete measure of the cost of living, it provides a consistent, regularly-updated picture of regional housing differences.
For a baseline honorarium, I propose that churches ordinarily use 10% of the monthly O-4-with-dependents BAH rate for the church’s ZIP code, rounded to the nearest $25.
Any BAH-based formula requires the use of a single pay grade and dependency category. I selected O-4 with dependents as a midcareer reference point that avoids both entry-level and senior-officer rates and, at 10%, produces a moderate range across housing markets. The category is not intended to classify the preacher by rank, military status, or family circumstances. It is simply a consistent reference point for measuring regional housing differences. Another category, percentage, or locality index could reasonably be used.
The formula gives sessions an objective starting point that changes with local housing costs and can be reviewed annually. Here is how the proposed formula works in three different housing markets:
EXAMPLES USING 2026 MONTHLY O-4 BAH RATES WITH DEPENDENTS
| Location | BAH Rate | 10 Percent | Suggested Baseline Honorarium |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hickory, NC (Western Piedmont) | $2,343 | $234.30 | $225 |
| Glenside, PA (Philadelphia Metro) | $3,714 | $371.40 | $375 |
| Commack, NY (New York Metro) | $5,502 | $550.20 | $550 |
Some sessions may find these amounts surprisingly high, a reaction that deserves examination. Is the proposed honorarium genuinely beyond the church’s means, or does it seem high because the customary amount has gone unchanged for many years? A benchmark need not be accepted uncritically, but neither should it be dismissed simply because it challenges an inherited expectation.
What may adjust the honorarium?
Pastoral experience should be the first consideration in moving above the baseline. A minister with many years of tested service brings more discernment, skill, and pastoral maturity than a man just beginning his ministry. Those qualities remain valuable when he supplies another church’s pulpit. A session should therefore ordinarily pay a minister with substantial pastoral experience more than the baseline amount, just as a congregation would expect to pay more when calling an experienced pastor. The precise adjustment will require judgment, but as a practical benchmark, a session might use 15% of the same BAH rate for a minister with fifteen or more years of pastoral experience.
Compensation also shapes what a church may reasonably request. Every preacher owes the Lord and the congregation faithful preparation regardless of the honorarium. The baseline does not presume extensive new preparation. It assumes one sermon at one service, with the minister free to select his text. An assigned text, continuing the church’s sermon series, or a sermon for a particular occasion may require substantially more preparation and should receive additional compensation. Assuming other pastoral duties may also warrant an increase.
Do not presume upon the minister’s charity.
Some churches genuinely lack the means to pay the baseline honorarium. Mission works, congregations facing severe financial hardship, and churches undergoing reorganization may need to offer less. There is nothing wrong with asking a minister to serve sacrificially. The problem comes when the church assumes that sacrifice without discussing it with him.
When a church cannot pay its baseline honorarium, it should state that plainly when extending the invitation. For example, “Under our ordinary pulpit supply policy, the honorarium would be $250. As a mission church, however, we are presently able to offer $125. Would you be willing to serve us at that amount?”
This gives the minister the opportunity to decide whether he is able and willing to serve for less. The unpaid difference is then a sacrifice he has freely chosen. The reduced amount should not be taken as the value of the work or as a rate the church is entitled to expect in the future.
Name the honorarium in advance.
When inviting a guest preacher, a session should state the honorarium along with the other details of the invitation. Naming the honorarium does not commercialize preaching. It removes uncertainty and allows both the church and the minister to accept the arrangement knowingly. Clear communication is itself one way of honoring the minister and his work. It also helps make these conversations normal rather than awkward.
A simple invitation might read, “We would like to invite you to preach on July 12. You would be free to select the text. Our honorarium for one service is $275, and we reimburse mileage when travel exceeds 45 minutes each way.”
Communication should go both ways. When a church does not mention compensation, a minister may appropriately ask what it ordinarily pays or state his normal honorarium. Ministers are often reluctant to discuss money because they do not want to appear mercenary, particularly when other employment already provides their principal income. That reluctance is understandable and often commendable, but it can also allow unclear and outdated practices to continue.
Honor a minister’s labor.
The PCA already recognizes that compensation for settled ministry deserves objective guidance, regular review, and ecclesiastical judgment. Pulpit supply is a narrower arrangement, yet it deserves the same deliberate attention. Whether a church uses the benchmark proposed here or another measure, it should seek to honor the labor of a minister who has accepted responsibility for bringing God’s Word to God’s people on the Lord’s Day.
Churches will continue to hand guest preachers white envelopes after the service. There is nothing wrong with the envelope. But the amount inside should have been carefully considered by the session, and it should no longer be a mystery to the minister who receives it.
Benjamin J. Shear is a PCA teaching elder currently serving as a Navy chaplain.