While browsing through Bradford County newspapers from the 1800s over the last ten years, I’ve seen a lot of announcements about “donation parties” for ministers.  Most of these parties were for non-Universalist ministers, but a few were for Universalists.

The parties were an opportunity for members of the congregation to give gifts – food, clothing, household goods, money, etc. – to their minister.  They were usually held around Christmas or New Year’s.  Sometimes they were held in the minister’s home, and sometimes in a member’s home, the church, or a public building.

While giving gifts to your minister sounds like a nice thing to do, it wasn’t always as nice as you’d think.  In some instances, the value of the gifts was deducted from the minister’s salary!  If the party was held at the minister’s home and included a meal, the meal might be provided by the congregation, or the minister’s wife might be expected to feed the guests.

Even if the gifts were an addition to the minister’s salary, the fact that the gifts were basic necessities suggests that his salary was inadequate to provide for his family’s needs.  An article from an Episcopal publication, reprinted in a Towanda newspaper in 1860, said, in part:

“It is the nature of gifts to degrade, to cause a feeling of dependency, of inferiority. and of obligation…  If the minister has not an “adequate support,” be honest, and raise his salary until he has.  If there are to be any presents, let them be on the same footing as those which a pastor might also make – not to eke out a support; not charity.  It is mean beyond measure to withhold an adequate salary and then bestow gifts.”

Universalist minister the Rev. Walter Bullard, who was active in Bradford and Tioga counties between the 1830s and the 1860s, wrote in 1836:

“The practice of making donation parties for the minister, is very common among Partialists [i.e., Christians who did not believe in universal salvation], (especially Presbyterians,) but of rare occurrence among Universalists…  I think [this] practice commendable, and praiseworthy in those who engage in it.  It shows, in the first place, that they judge correctly of the necessary expenses of a minister, which, in this country, are generally above his salary, subjecting him to embarrassments, such as no public speaker, especially a clergyman, ought to be encumbered with – that is, if the people of his charge wish him to preach acceptably.  Secondly, it shows that they are mindful of the necessities of their pastor – that they feel an interest in his welfare; and wish him to live comfortably and respectably.  In short, that they consider him as one of their own family, and that as such, they intend his wants shall be supplied.”

Nevertheless, Bullard did not recommend the practice to Universalists.  Instead, he wrote:

“I would have Universalists pay their preachers according to contract – pay them faithfully, and punctually – pay them in full, and not withhold a farthing.  And I would hold up this practice of the Partialists, of making their preachers donations over and above their salaries, to admonish Universalists of the importance of making out to their preachers, at least, the amount of their salaries in full…”

He continued:

“It often happens, as thousands can testify, that a society of Universalists engage a preacher to labor with them a portion of the time, for a certain sum, on which the preacher depends for the support of his family.  But, at the end of the year, through the carelessness of the trustees – the illiberality of some in subscribing, and the failure of others to pay their subscription, the society comes short of the amount – and the consequence is, the poor preacher sustains the loss, which is to him loss indeed.  He is thus deprived of his living; and his family, or creditors, or both, must suffer, and he perhaps be disgraced, and that, too, by his generous employers.”

It was apparently not uncommon, in rural churches at least, for congregations to not pay their ministers their promised salary in full.  The Athens society fell behind on paying their minister several times in the late 1800s and early 1900s.  They had gotten into the habit of hiring ministers without insuring that they had sufficient pledges to pay them.  One example:  At the end of the 1910-1911 church year, the Athens congregation owed its minister, the Rev. Clark Paddock, at least $200  – one quarter of his annual salary!

Today we at UUCAS can be proud that we have for many years followed UUA fair compensation guidelines for our ministers, that we budget judiciously, and that our members fulfill their pledges.