Wendell Berry’s essay, “God and Country,” in his collection entitled “What are People For,” has to be one of the most profound for me as a clergy person. Its painful, convicting, and crisis-of-conscious forming. It also prompts me to imagine an alternative way.
His basic premise in the essay (which you should read for yourself) exclaims that Christianity as it is practiced in the west is predisposed to ecological conflict because of the way it has, “made peace with ‘the economy.’”
He writes:
“The organized church comes immediately under a compulsion to think of itself, and identify itself to the world, not as an institution synonymous with its truth and its membership, but as a hodgepodge of funds, properties, projects, and offices, all urgently requiring economic support.”
“Like any other public institution so organize, the organized church is dependent upon, ‘the economy.’”
As he levels his critique, Berry places his finger on how the tool of disembodied spiritualization actually maintains this economic alliance. He writes:
“No wonder so many sermons are devoted exclusively to ’spiritual’ subjects. If one is living by the tithes of history’s most destructive economy, then the disembodiment of the soul becomes the chief of worldly conveniences.”
Berry’s indictment is shared by many participants in emergence Christianity. The atonement was not only for individual human souls, but for all things. As long as its for individual human souls only, bodies, ecosystems, plants, and animals become accessories or distractions.
Berry then goes on to critique two “manifestations” that maintain the organized church’s alliance with the economy. For this post, I’ll focus on one, which is the first one he addresses in the essay. He writes:
“The first is the phrase ‘full-time Christian service,’ which the churches of my experience have used exclusively to refer to the ministry, thereby at once making of the devoted life a religious specialty or career and removing the possibility of devotion from other callings”
“The churches in this way excerpt sanctity from the human economy and its work just as Cartesian science has excerpted it from the material creation. And its easy to see the interdependence of these two desecrations: the desecration of nature would have been impossible without the desecration of work, and vice versa.”
Emergents have been picking at this scab for a while. I’ve had conversations about this and other conflicts related to being a professional Christian. Berry’s critique deals with the devaluation of work for the general public by the spiritual and financial valuation of full time ministry. There are other problems created by a paid clergy structure as well; from the silencing of prophetic proclamation, to the creation of congregational codependency upon staff.
What do you think? Should the structures that maintain a class of professional ministers be dismantled or evacuated? Can they be redeemed?
52 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 5, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Andrew
“What do you think? Should the structures that maintain a class of professional ministers be dismantled or evacuated? Can they be redeemed?”
I absolutely think that such structures should be dismantled. Denominations these days often exist for the sole purpose of perpetuating leadership systems from which leaders benefit. Pastors are either intentionally complicit in helping these systems to continue to rob the church of its resources or they are stuck in the system without any other viable career options to support their families.
Wendell Berry is known for saying that pastors ought to learn to do something useful for their communities – learn a trade to earn their living – instead of relying on the guilt and sense of obligation of their congregations to sustain their lives of “professional pastoral leadership.” I agree with him but, like so many, change is slow in coming.
The current economic climate is, I think, helping to dismantle those systems by force because denominations of all kinds are finding that they can no longer do ministry and sustain the outmoded and ineffective systems of “pastoral leadership” without giving up doing ministry altogether. A frightening question comes to mind in thinking about this: how many denominational leaders, if given the option between losing their salary and insurance and housing allowance and car allowance and other “perks”, would do so in order to help their particular tribe advance the cause of Christ in the world? Maybe they would all “take the fall” in order to pursue the greater good of serving the world for Christ. But I’m not so optimistic. Current church structures in so many of today’s denominations are so tied to our self-serving, “world-centered” desires that I doubt many church leaders would notice that they’d given up doing ministry in order to preserve their own power and livelihood.
But that’s just my two-cents.
Peace,
A.T.
August 6, 2009 at 2:57 am
Mike Griesheimer
Pastors should ‘learn to do something useful for their communities’? I’ll be the first to admit that some pastors could take a more active role, but you don’t consider preaching the Word of God to be useful? I’m sorry, but are you even a Christian?
August 6, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Zach Roberts
Mike,
I appreciate you bringing another perspective on questions like this, and want you to be able to express yourself here.
However, if you’re going to question someone’s “Christianity” in conversations like this then I will start deleting your comments. Its completely unnecessary.
Lets keep things less, “ad hominem,” and more substantive.
August 6, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Mike Griesheimer
You’re right Zach. I’m sorry A.T., I let my emotions take control of me for a minute. It’s just that I do completely understand where you’re coming from. For a long time, I thought the way you did, until I became more acquainted with the leadership at my church. There’s a lot of ‘background’ stuff that people don’t realize. I learned that being a pastor isn’t just a Sunday job. There is a tremendous amount of work that goes on 24/7. There’s sheep that need to be discipled, wolves that need to be chased off, and constantly having to defend yourself from a world that thinks what you do is foolish or even criminal. Some men do it well, and some men do it poorly, but the answer is not to do away with it completely, the answer is to find out what you can do to help out. I wish, with all my heart, that the time I had spent criticizing my pastor had been instead spent doing things that would make his job easier.
August 6, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Zach Roberts
Mike,
Thanks for receiving my request here. My hope was that you wouldn’t get the impression that we suppress dissent here. We’re all guilty of getting emotional within dialogs like this, and I think its because we really care. I’m glad you care enough to loose it. What’s more I’m glad your big enough to apologize when you do.
I agree that pastors do way more than congregations see or know about. I am one, so I am more acquainted than most. I am also glad that you are a person who respects that.
This isn’t a conversation about disrespecting or denying the importance of what ministers do. Its a critical conversation about a system that has them doing more than they should when the church is really the responsibility of all its members. (As a Baptist I take priesthood of believers more serious than most.)
As Americans its hard to think of compensation as anything other than dollars. Gospel compensation is bigger than what out economic imaginations are willing to conceive. I’d like for us to imagine bigger.
Again, thanks for pushing back. I think we become something better when we make space for diverse perspectives.
August 5, 2009 at 7:14 pm
tripp fuller
I agree. Just the church should wait until my retirement fund is secure.
As long as the ministers like the laity outsourcing responsibility and discipleship we will continue to have this problem. Of course there are some real creative ways to have trained clergy that respond to a number of the problems….chastity, poverty, bi-vocational, and the abbey model….probably more.
August 5, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Will Rogers(aka, ReformedFundy)
What does the Scripture say about paid clergy? Isn’t that the question that should be asked?
August 5, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Zach Roberts
That’s assumed. There was no paid clergy in the NT church. Economically, the structure was bi-vocational if anything. That’s at the root of much of the criticism, but wasn’t expressed explicitly in the post.
August 6, 2009 at 2:52 am
Mike Griesheimer
I don’t think it’s assumed. Read 1 Corinthians 9. Paul directly deals with pastors and preachers being paid for their service. Whether or not he was always paid (which I know he wasn’t) isn’t the point. I don’t think you understand how much work a good pastor puts into his preaching and ministry. You see a sermon on Sunday morning and think ‘Man, I could bang that out in an hour’, but you don’t see all the weddings, funerals, hospital ministry, 2am phone calls, lunches, dinners, prayer, study, personal ministry, etc, etc, they do. Read Acts 6:2. Luke says it well
“And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
You also said:
“There are other problems created by a paid clergy structure as well; from the silencing of prophetic proclamation, to the creation of congregational codependency upon staff. ”
Silencing prophetic proclamation? We already have it, it’s called the Bible. Congregation codependency on staff? So the guy helping people park is bad? So the ushers helping people find a seat are bad? So the janitor is bad? So the secretary who helps the pastor keep appointments and help with the administration is bad? So the Sunday School teacher is bad? So the accountant is bad?
If you’d like to discuss this further, please e-mail me. I latched on to the Emergent movement sometime around 2002, and stayed with it until sometime 2005. There are some good ideas floating around in there that need to be communicated with the wider Church, but there’s not enough Bible.
August 6, 2009 at 4:26 am
Matthew Svoboda
Zach,
That isn’t necessarily true. We don’t know if some of the leaders in the New Testament were paid or not. All we know is that Paul said they should get paid, but that he himself chose not to receive money for his work…
August 6, 2009 at 4:27 am
Drew Tatusko
on face value i agree, but with realistic qualification. the emergence of the professional minister can in large part be traced back to the emergence of the theological seminary as a separate entity to train ministers to make ministry a competitive industry in the wake of Christendom in the late 19th, early 20th century; really from about 1870 to 1920.
however ideal the de-professionalization of ministry is, i wonder with the inherent issues in the compartmentalization of vocation the western (northern) economy demands, how we can support ministers who are not a part of this structure. that is to say, our current social structure assumes ministry to be a job among others. it seems to demand a severe systemic rupture of these economic assumptions. i have not wrapped my head around what that might look like.
the lay in the pews cannot possibly put in the time necessary to be ministers as pastors would love to see. so where does that leave the pastor as the person to hold the structure together? more questions than answers… but damn good questions we have got to resolve.
August 6, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Mike Griesheimer
“the emergence of the professional minister can in large part be traced back to the emergence of the theological seminary as a separate entity to train ministers to make ministry a competitive industry in the wake of Christendom in the late 19th, early 20th century; really from about 1870 to 1920.”
I would have to disagree with this. There have been always been ‘professional pastors’. Jesus was in full-time ministry. I won’t say He was rich or anything, but he needed an apostle (Judas) to take care of the money people gave Him. (I know, He also had to go fishing to pay his taxes at one point)
I agree that there is an over-dependency on churches to provide programs and people for us, but I would disagree that a dependency itself is wrong. People who can devote their time to ministry without having to earn a living can do much better than someone who is trying to do ministry, work 40 (or more) hours a week, and still has to try to work in family time.
In the end, it all comes down to authority. We’re rebellious. We don’t like someone telling us how it is. We figure we’re smart enough and old enough and wise enough to figure it out on our own, but the truth is, we’re not. We need people who have spent decades praying and walking with Christ. We need someone who’s open and honest about themselves, so they can use their lives as an example of how we should live ours. We can’t live up to God’s expectations, but out of love, we sill strive for it until we can go no more, and Jesus will make up the rest for us.
August 6, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Andrew
“I would have to disagree with this. There have been always been ‘professional pastors’. Jesus was in full-time ministry. I won’t say He was rich or anything, but he needed an apostle (Judas) to take care of the money people gave Him. (I know, He also had to go fishing to pay his taxes at one point).”
Two things: 1) Jesus was NOT a full-time minister. Jesus was a carpenter. 2) Judas was not the keeper of the money that people gave to Jesus. He was the keeper of the “common purse” that Jesus and his disciples shared with each other.
August 6, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Mike Griesheimer
Jesus was a carpenter by trade, but the Bible says nothing about Him continuing in that trade once He started ministry. In those days, everything was by hand. Now, you can make a chair in a matter of an hour or so with the proper tools, but in His days, it would take time to a) cut the wood (with saws that weren’t the sharp, trusty things we know today) b) smooth the wood c) drill holes (with drills that weren’t the sharp, trusty things we know today) d) fit the pieces together e) do finishing work so nobody would get splinters when they touched it (without the benefit of sandpaper). A table and chairs could take, easily, a week if not more. Also, you didn’t just find someone in the yellow pages and order a chair, you had to trust someone to do the work well, because it was expensive to have made, and if they had shoddy work, you were out of both your money and chair. You needed referrals, examples of work, etc. Jesus could not have possibly had any meaningful practice while doing His ministry. As well, He was thought to be quite a disreputable character, so who would have bought anything form Him anyway?
I concede your point about Judas. The Bible does say that Judas kept the money, but it doesn’t say exactly where that money came from. However, Jesus being involved in full-time ministry, and the apostles being involved in full-time learning, it would have been hard for any of them to actually have side jobs. Not that I say they didn’t, I’m saying if they did, they were sporadic, and most of their time was spent in ministry. We can also look back to the OT commands on tithing supporting the priests, and figure that they probably would have given offerings to Jesus.
August 6, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Drew Tatusko
while i agree with andrew’s rebuttal, my focus is on the trends in the US. the profession of the minister as a separate paid line of work is comparatively new. pick up any history of us higher education and you will see the same narrative in each. minister training before toughly 1870 in the US was done primarily through apprenticeships. lay leadership was far more normative than it is now. in order to be competitive with trends toward secularization in education and other places, seminaries focused on professional training, degree conferral, etc. to ratchet up the relative prestige of the ministry as a field that could compete with other fields like law and medicine. before this, training was to go through a typical classical education followed by an apprenticeship by someone ordained who likely had another trade that he performed in order to get paid.
not only is paid professional ministry no longer sustainable as a competitive field, geographic distance from churches among parishioners, increased demands at work, other social factors mitigate the ability for lay leaders to perform the administrative much less programmatic functions of a church.
August 6, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Andrew
“The lay in the pews cannot possibly put in the time necessary to be ministers as pastors would love to see. ”
You are right that the lay cannot possibly do all the things that pastors are expected to do because pastors are expected to do far too many things. In addition to being theologians and teachers as well as available for pastoral care in times of crises, pastors today are also often required to be expert administrators, business managers, tech experts, conflict mediators, and the list goes on.
According to the Barna Group, most pastors are required to juggle sixteen major tasks at once. Modern C.E.O.’s and directors of major nonprofits could never sustain their organizations if the same standards that are applied to pastors were applied to them.
That’s why today’s systems – not just clergy salaries but the whole, unbiblical, market-based mess – need to be dismantled or at least severely altered.
August 6, 2009 at 4:32 am
Matthew Svoboda
“What do you think? Should the structures that maintain a class of professional ministers be dismantled or evacuated? Can they be redeemed?”
Not dismantled, just altered. It isn’t bad or wrong to pay people for the work they do, 1 Corinthians 9 is clear on that. It is legalistic to say that it is wrong to pay preachers and teachers outrightly.
The problem is the over-dependency that has been put on the “system” that has been established. The problem isn’t “we pay staff.” The problem is “We have set up the church in such a way that the only people who do any teaching, leading, etc. are paid staff (which results in over-dependency.) We need to think with a clear head on this issue and not push so far away from what we have to end up in the same wrong on the opposite side.
August 6, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Andrew
Regardless of whether we “know” for sure whether or not some teachers or apostles received compensation for their work. We can be certain that the complex denominational clergy systems that exist today did not exist in the new testament.
Moreover, it is also likely that ministerial compensation did not take the form of a regular salary because professional clergy did not exist until roughly the third century. The early church (NT era through at least the first century) did not have “pastors” as we know them today.
Rather, ministry was characterized by a plurality of functions embodied by lay people in the role(s) of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and shepherds / teachers. Each of these lay ministers may have been supported by their local communities but none of them relied entirely on a church community for all of their needs. What’s more, in 1 Corinthians 9, Paul only refers to the “rights” of apostolic workers – not of all those who minister.
All of that is to say that I don’t necessarily think that we must follow NT structure to the letter. Rather, I just wanted to point out that we cannot extrapolate from Paul’s writings a biblical position on clergy salaries since neither clergy nor clergy salaries existed in the early church.
August 6, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Matthew Svoboda
Of course not, we live in a different context. They also didn’t use sound systems, have pews, and use video projection. We cant literally return to exactly what was in Acts. The ministers of the gospel in Acts were “taken care of.” We “take care of” our ministers by paying them and sometimes providing housing. Let’s not be legalistic on how that has to look like.
It doesnt matter if it was “salaries.” They could easily of been paid, it does not matter if we pay in a different way than they did.
August 6, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Mike Griesheimer
I agree Matt. I would also say that if the system isn’t working as well as it should, the answer is not to throw the system out, it’s to heal it. A good example is the US government. Does it do a lot wrong? Yes, we all agree. Does it do a lot right, though, that’s the important question. It does lots of things very well and very efficiently. So let’s focus on the good, and support and affirm that, rather than focusing on the negative, and lifting that up in our hearts. That’s not to say ignore the negative, it does need to be taken care of, but that shouldn’t be the only thing we see when we look at something.
August 6, 2009 at 4:34 am
Matthew Svoboda
Drew makes a good point. I would say a whole lot of this problem comes down to the fact that our churches aren’t training the next generation of pastors, rather they are being sent off to seminaries and dont get proper hands on training. This also makes churches dependent on the seminaries. Paying staff can be a very good thing, according to Paul, we just have to stop making our churches dependent on everything besides themselves.
August 6, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Matthew Svoboda
Zach,
To be clear, I am not saying “making a living” equals “earning a monetary income.” I am merely saying Scripture does not forbid it so we shouldnt be legalistic and forbid something that Scripture doesn’t. the same principle applies to alcohol.
August 6, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Matthew Svoboda
Zach,
I apologize for seeming that I am imposing something on you. That was not at all my intent. Maybe I misread what you were saying, but it appeared to me that you were under the impression that Paul could not of meant “salaries” when saying they are worth there wages, therefore, we should not pay with salaries. I am sorry if that is not what you have been trying to say. We both agree that the door is left open in how paying someone for their work is done. I was just under the impression that you closed the door on salaries. I am not saying that is the only way it can be done, I am a big proponent of bivocational pastors, I am just saying that it looks different in every culture and having salaries is not wrong for our culture.
August 6, 2009 at 6:31 pm
gracerules
I’ll start out with a couple of disclaimers – I am not and have never been in full time paid ministry and I do not believe that it is “wrong” for pastors to be paid a salary.
Even though I do not think it is wrong for pastors to be paid a salary I do “not” think that it is the best way for the church to operate. I do think that it causes the church to have to be managed like a business, the congregation to have an unhealthy dependence on the paid staff of a church and silences prophetic proclamation. I know many wonderful people who earn their living by being on staff at churches but I think the system needs to be dismantled.
Many of the comments here talk about “all the things” that a pastor has to do. IMO all of those things should be shared by those who are members of that community. The problem is that the system causes the members of the community to believe that the pastor should be doing those things because he is paid to do those things and the pastor to believe that he should be doing all those things because he is being compensated. Perhaps one reason most Christian’s are unaware of what spiritual gifts are bestowed upon them is because of the system that we have created – it seems to insinuate that “the working body” of the church is made up of a few people who are on staff. I know they are far and few between but there are groups of Christians meeting in the world where there is not a paid staff and where the work of ministry is done by everyone in the group so it is possible to do it differently. In addition, it appears to me that a lot of “the things that have to be done” in churches today are things that have to be done to keep “the system” running and “the system” seems to resemble a country club a lot of times with all of it’s internal programs and activities.
I am always hearing that there is a problem these days getting college aged and young adults to attend/get involved in a local church but they aren’t the only ones. Many middle aged and older adults, like myself, who have devoted most of their lives to “the church” are leaving the church (if not physically, then emotionally) because it has become more of a hindrance than a help in our spiritual journey.
August 7, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Andrew
“Many of the comments here talk about “all the things” that a pastor has to do. IMO all of those things should be shared by those who are members of that community. The problem is that the system causes the members of the community to believe that the pastor should be doing those things because he is paid to do those things and the pastor to believe that he should be doing all those things because he is being compensated. Perhaps one reason most Christian’s are unaware of what spiritual gifts are bestowed upon them is because of the system that we have created – it seems to insinuate that “the working body” of the church is made up of a few people who are on staff.”
How true! I just read a transcript of an article by Gordon Fee – a phenomenal NT Scholar as well as an Assemblies of God pastor – that focuses on spiritual gifting for leadership as opposed to gender or even authority. The best part is that EVERYONE is gifted for some form of ministry.
August 6, 2009 at 6:39 pm
gracerules
ooops – sorry to have posted my comment twice – it was a mistake:>(
August 6, 2009 at 7:16 pm
documentia
Great post, Zach. I’m really glad I started reading your blog, as the “bapti” in “baptimergent” put me off in the past (I am learning to get over my prejudice against Baptists).
I’ve attended a number of churches, some with great pastors, at least by the outward measures of sermon writing and delivery, ability to provide loving and caring pastoral support/guidance, and managerial/organizational skills; but most with pastors who fall short on or more of those counts. The crackerjack, triple-threat pastors tend to rise to the top of the megachurch heap, and as a result often preside over churches are either impersonal and corporate and/or cults of personality.
Most of the churches I’ve stuck with have been congregations where I felt a strong sense of love and community, despite the (often considerable) shortcomings of the pastor. These churches usually are not the ones with the stellar worship team, great children’s programs, etc., but they are the ones where I see a living example of Paul’s beautiful image of the body of Christ. They’re the places where, as the song goes, everybody knows your name. They’re the churches where, if something is going to happen, more often than not, you and a few other congregants are going to have to make it happen, because there are only three paid staff members and they have enough on their plate as it is. Sure, the VBS may not be as cool and dynamic as the VBS at Brand X church across town, but it’s made with love.
My point is, that it’s the body, not the leaders, that make a church home for me. I think Zach makes a good point about codependency. Why do I need a pastor to pray for me when I am sick? Why not my dear friends and neighbors? Why do I need a pastor to tell me what is right or wrong, or give me guidance? What ever happened to working out our own salvation with fear and trembling? I need it because my pastor tells me I need it. If we all stop needing his services, he stops getting paid. I am not suggesting that there is no value in the work and discipline that goes into studying the Bible or that I have no respect for the wisdom of elders. But often the people whose wisdom I have the most respect for, the people I view as true giants of faith, are not paid clergy.
I grew up in a non-denominational charismatic church, and the anti-intellectualism I observed there left me with a profound respect for the amount of scholarship that is required for ordination in a mainline denomination. I think that theology, biblical history and criticism, etc., are valuable disciplines that are worth pursuing. And I do worry that they would die out if those studying them could not be assured of a career as an endpoint.
At the same time, I realize that for all that biblical knowledge, pastors are often no better than those they purport to shepherd. I have met too many clergy who have been just as venal and self serving as anybody else. I’ve seen friendships, faith, and communities destroyed because of the hypocrisy of clergy.
That said I’m not against pastors per se, but I do think there needs to be a restructuring of our current systems. There often seems to be a vicious circle of starting new programs to bring in new members, who bring in more money, which can be used to hire more staff who can then start more programs. And of course, with all these new members we now need to build a bigger building, which requires more money, which requires more people tithing, etc. And if a church decides to opt out of this crazy cycle of consumption and acquisition of souls, they risk losing members to Brand X across town, which in turn puts the pastor’s livelihood in jeopardy. And thus our modern church culture becomes virtually indistinguishable from the entertainment industry or the fast-food industry. It becomes another way for the masses to consume, rather than create.
So anyway, I appreciate that there are clergy trying to find a way out of this mess. There are days when I want to opt for the whole blow it all up approach, although today is not one of those.
-Rebekah
August 6, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Mike Griesheimer
Although I love to debate on the internet, I have to say I agree with your post. We just have to make sure not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
August 7, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Zach Roberts
Rebekah,
I am glad to have you as a reader. When I was a campus minister, much of my ministry involved shattering people’s assumptions about baptists. I’m glad to help get you past some of your prejudices — and I am sure you were justified in having them. Its likely that we shared some of the same ones.
Thanks for your thoughtful addition to this dialog. I think there is some wisdom in finding harmony between the option to dismantle and the option to redeem. My effort with questions like this is to remove the ceiling on our imaginations and get us thinking about new possibilities.
August 6, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Is Professional Ministry A Help Or A Hindrance To The Church? « Grace Rules Weblog
[...] discussion going on over at Baptimergent regarding professional ministry. You can find the post here. Here’s my [...]
August 6, 2009 at 7:46 pm
A Reposted Comment From Another Blog, or I Am Lazy: Part II « Renovation
[...] · Leave a Comment This is a long comment I wrote in response to Zach Robert’s post at Baptimergent asking whether there is something seriously wrong with our current ecclesial structures. [...]
August 6, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Brian
“What do you think? Should the structures that maintain a class of professional ministers be dismantled or evacuated? Can they be redeemed?”
I’m gonna weigh in on the above question in a macro-sense, and change the subject a bit if that’s cool. I’ve thought a good deal about this very issue myself. What does it mean to garner income from a job that: a) is really the work of the community of God (be it Israel in the OT or the followers of Jesus in the NT); b) the furthering of the Missio Dei, and c) seems to have within it an inherent dualism (garnered by modernity, enlightenment, and the industrial revolution) that denies the work of the people in a context, within a context, if that makes sense. In other words, if I am to contribute and participate in the Missio Dei, but the body of Christ in our particular context has made it an institution that mirrors a business and keeps the “pastor” out of that context, are we not not perpetuating the sub-cultural/ghetto context of the institution? How often does the aforementioned overwhelming duties of the pastor relate primarily and exclusively to those in the institution of their care? As a campus minister who worked alongside several pastors, that was one of their biggest struggles and heartaches: the lack of time, effort and ability to participate in the Missio Dei as individuals. This would seem to then both hamper or dampen any awareness of their context and begin initiating dialogue and movement into said context of those under their paid care.
As one who is in [Fuller] seminary as an InterCultural Studies student, I can say that I chose not to finish my M.Div. partly for this very reason. As a church, our self-critical and self-aware reading of Scripture is significant to shaping our understanding of all things, even structures and paychecks (of which I agree with the Zach’s and other’s counter to Mike stance; it’s a different reading of Scripture and not a jettison of the Bible). How does the Bible inform our presupposed understanding of structures, ecclesia, leadership, etc.? The schools of theology which house the M Div programs will likely shy away from this, lest their enrollment begins to decrease.
Further, what does it mean in a larger context of the body of Jesus where often up to 50% or more of a parish budget goes to salaries and capitol? Particularly when the parish is often self-serving, where the Missio Dei happens around them culturally unaware to the local congregation? (Being involved vocationally as a “missionary” in a campus setting working closely and directly with the institutional church has given me experience to write that statement. Ins. churches may exist that do recognize the Missio Dei and operate for others beyond themselves, but they are hard to find.) How do we reconcile our faithful use of money and the often overlooked (or ignored) call to care for the poor with our resources?
Alright, just some thoughts. Any further dialogue/confirmation/rebuttal is invited! I appreciate this conversation… [Thanks Zach and W. Berry!]
August 6, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Andrew Tatum
Woah!! I go away for an afternoon and you guys just party without me!
I loved the following quote by Rebekah:
“My point is, that it’s the body, not the leaders, that make a church home for me. I think Zach makes a good point about codependency. Why do I need a pastor to pray for me when I am sick? Why not my dear friends and neighbors? Why do I need a pastor to tell me what is right or wrong, or give me guidance? What ever happened to working out our own salvation with fear and trembling? I need it because my pastor tells me I need it. If we all stop needing his services, he stops getting paid. I am not suggesting that there is no value in the work and discipline that goes into studying the Bible or that I have no respect for the wisdom of elders. But often the people whose wisdom I have the most respect for, the people I view as true giants of faith, are not paid clergy.”
In the interest of full disclosure, I receive part of my income from youth work in a local church. While I do think better systems ought to be developed for the church, change comes slowly for those with spouses and children. The sort of pastoral ministry I can get behind wholeheartedly would be either bi-vocational or volunteer and I know that it is possible to be both a good pastor and an unpaid or part-time pastor. For example, I know a man who is a volunteer pastor and founder of a local church with over 300 members and he continues to be a volunteer minister and work full-time in a “secular” career. So I know for certain that it can be done and done very well.
In each of my comments – nitpicking though they may be – I have been trying to say something like what Rebekah just said. Although there’s nothing inherently wrong with pastors being supported, I would say that having a paid pastor is not a prerequisite for being a faithful community of Christ followers (church). All of the functions that pastors today are expected to fulfill can (and maybe should) be fulfilled by laypeople. Many of the things that the “laity” expect pastors to do as a function of their position are things that most Christians should be doing on their own anyway.
August 11, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Marika
Doesn’t it depend at least a bit on what your paid church leaders actually do? I’m a member of a Salvation Army Church, and our church building is half taken up with kids’ play equipment, and half with an area that serves as Sunday meeting space, but also as a community cafe. Our leaders are paid, but they spend a significant proportion of their week working in the cafe, running creches, and attending local community forums (fora?). When I give money to my church, I don’t feel like I’m just paying for my Sunday meetings: I feel like I’m investing in my local community, and funding services which benefit some of the most needy people in my local area. It’s not a model of paid church leadership I’ve seen before, or at least not to the same extent, but I think it rocks.
August 11, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Zach Roberts
Marika,
That’s a lot closer to what many of us are imagining here. In most traditional church contexts the minister spends all of his/her time catering to the demands and needs of the members rather than participating in the life of the community. Some congregations assume that they pay for that with their tithes. That’s a worst case scenario, but it happens. Its an expectation born out of the economic structure of professional clergy.
Perhaps what we can take from a discussion like this is the motivation and imaginative freedom to dream of new economic models for clergy. Some of which already find a measure of expression in churches like yours. I know for me, the Abbey model of clergy/worshipping community plying a trade for income is very attractive. Adapting a social entrepreneur model that helps fund a missional community via a network of entrepreneurs is something I would love to put more flesh on in the future. Perhaps the most useful degree/skill set in my mind would be a theology degree (M.Div) and a business degree (MBA) – when thinking about the clergy of the future.
August 12, 2009 at 2:23 am
Should Clergy Be Paid? « When the Church Hurts
[...] Should Clergy Be Paid? I am starting to question the necessity of a paid clergy. Zach from Baptimergent did not help by posting this. [...]
August 16, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Tripp
Wow. The comment thread is astounding. Thanks, gang, for this. As a paid clergyguy, I find this whole conversation enlivening. What is the role of clergy? What does it mean to be a priest? I’m Baptist and I want to know. We keep talking about administration and programs. Fine. But that’s a narrow understanding of the role of clergy. We discuss the pseudopsychological role of pastors as counselors. That is also troubling.
The church itself as an institution makes little sense in its current incarnation. Thus, clergy also make no sense. We have to dig deeper and look at the function of the congregation…and then ask what the clergy should or should not be doing, and if they should be paid for it.
Good conversation, people. Thank you.
August 6, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Zach Roberts
“I don’t think you understand how much work a good pastor puts into his preaching and ministry. You see a sermon on Sunday morning and think ‘Man, I could bang that out in an hour’, but you don’t see all the weddings, funerals, hospital ministry, 2am phone calls, lunches, dinners, prayer, study, personal ministry, etc, etc, they do. Read Acts 6:2.”
I am a pastor, so yes I do understand. I have been in ministry for 12 years wrestling with these things.
1 Cor. 9 does mention, “making a living from the gospel.” However, it doesn’t necessarily follow that Paul wanted salaried professionals to uphold and maintain the systems & structures we have today. I can think of ways of making a living from the gospel that do not involve a monetary return on services provided. In fact the most life-giving gospel payments I have received have been from exchanges that take place outside of my paid responsibilities as a pastor.
And please don’t toss around the over-used and altogether untrue criticism that there’s not enough Bible in emergence Christianity. The reason people assume that is because emergents do not read the Bible the way non-emergents do. All of the questions I have asked of my faith and its practice have come from the fact that I read the bible — and largely because I read the bible while recognizing my presuppositions about it and asking critical questions of them. Something I was taught in seminary to be good exegetical practice.
August 6, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Andrew
Amen! See my comment above…
August 6, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Mike Griesheimer
“I am a pastor, so yes I do understand. I have been in ministry for 12 years wrestling with these things.”
Then you have my respect, my prayers, and my pity. :p Wrestle, but stay strong in the faith.
“In fact the most life-giving gospel payments I have received have been from exchanges that take place outside of my paid responsibilities as a pastor.”
Perhaps this is just my opinion, but I don’t think there is an “outside of my responsibilities as a paid pastor”. But I am completely open to the idea that that may just be my own belief.
“And please don’t toss around the over-used and altogether untrue criticism that there’s not enough Bible in emergence Christianity.”
I must respectfully stand by what I said. Like I said above, I was involved in EC for about 3 years. I looked at the blogs, I listened to the sermons, I read about the pastors, and I read their books. Of course, I cannot speak for ALL emergent churches, but most of the ones I knew who were heavy on bible have since disavowed the EC movement.
There most definitely Biblical teaching in EC churches, but a lot of it is interpreted through subjective feelings. Rather than taking a position that we are full of sin (although EC leaders do a great job of admitting sin) and therefore going to the Bible to see how we should live, all of the current EC churches I know of take the position of defining Biblical truth through current trends. (I.E. homosexuality is okay, women can be pastors, abortion is a personal choice, etc)
Again, please forgive me if I am too harsh or critical, but if I am, it’s because I WAS emergent for a long time, and it’s taken me a long time to get to the point where I realize that my sinfulness makes my interpretation of the Bible a slave to my own desire. I need to stand back and look at it in context, I need to listen to Godly men, and I need to discard myself, and only then can I really learn.
August 6, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Zach Roberts
I think we were typing ours at the same time. Amen to yours as well.
August 6, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Matthew Svoboda
“1 Cor. 9 does mention, “making a living from the gospel.” However, it doesn’t necessarily follow that Paul wanted salaried professionals to uphold and maintain the systems & structures we have today.”
You seem to have a legalistic approach to this issue. Just because Paul didnt have in mind exactly what we have today, it doesnt mean it is wrong. We live in different contexts and as long as the principle is followed, the “how” isn’t mandated. The principle is “the worker is worth his wages” and with that principle we pay pastors a salary, it is that simple.
August 6, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Zach Roberts
Matt my approach is actually the opposite of legalistic. I am questioning the assumption that “making a living” equals “earning a monetary income.”
August 6, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Matthew Svoboda
It’s funny that know one sees the legalism in their own thoughts… including me.
The legalism is here: When you say things that go about like this, “Paul said a worker is worth his wages, but that certainly can’t mean a salary.” There is nothing in the Bible that says it can’t mean a salary, period. It is legalistic in any area to outlaw something that Scripture doesn’t.
If in fact you are saying paying a salary is wrong because that isnt what Paul had in mind, you are being legalistic. I know that Emergents think they are the most unlegalistic Christians of all time, but it isnt true, they are just legalistic in different areas.
August 6, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Matthew Svoboda
Zach,
To be clear, I am not saying “making a living” equals “earning a monetary income.” I am merely saying Scripture does not forbid it so we shouldnt be legalistic and forbid something that Scripture doesn’t. the same principle applies to alcohol.
August 6, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Zach Roberts
Matt,
First, you misquoted me. I said, “1 Cor. 9 does mention, ‘making a living from the gospel.’ However, it doesn’t necessarily follow that Paul wanted salaried professionals to uphold and maintain the systems & structures we have today.”
Your paraphrase, (The legalism is here: When you say things that go about like this, “Paul said a worker is worth his wages, but that certainly can’t mean a salary.”), positions me as legalistic for your own argument. The actual statement above points out that the possibility for interpretation is open as to what “making a living” may mean at any given time in history. I have outlawed nothing. You assert that it could mean being paid money. I assert it could mean more than that.
Second, nowhere in this post or in the comments have I said it is wrong to pay pastors a salary, nor have I premised such an absolute comment on Paul. That’s a conclusion you jumped to on your own.
Third, I would agree that everyone is legalistic about something, and willingly admit when I am if the person pointing it out is accurate in their assertions. You however are imposing meanings on my statements that are useful for your purpose in labeling me legalistic.
August 6, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Mike Griesheimer
Perhaps we should clear this up. ‘What do you mean by ‘making a living’? When I think of it, I think of being paid a reasonable wage, probably close to middle class for your area, so that you can focus all your attention on the gospel.
August 6, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Matthew Svoboda
Zach,
I apologize for seeming that I am imposing something on you. That was not at all my intent. Maybe I misread what you were saying, but it appeared to me that you were under the impression that Paul could not of meant “salaries” when saying they are worth there wages, therefore, we should not pay with salaries. I am sorry if that is not what you have been trying to say. We both agree that the door is left open in how paying someone for their work is done. I was just under the impression that you closed the door on salaries. I am not saying that is the only way it can be done, I am a big proponent of bivocational pastors, I am just saying that it looks different in every culture and having salaries is not wrong for our culture.
August 6, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Matthew Svoboda
I wasnt trying to misquote you, I was trying to paraphrase what I thought you were getting at.
August 6, 2009 at 6:35 pm
gracerules
I’ll start out with a couple of disclaimers – I am not and have never been in full time paid ministry and I do not believe that it is “wrong” for pastors to be paid a salary.
Even though I do not think it is wrong for pastors to be paid a salary I do “not” think that it is the best way for the church to operate. I do think that it causes the church to have to be managed like a business, the congregation to have an unhealthy dependence on the paid staff of a church and silences prophetic proclamation. I know many wonderful people who earn their living by being on staff at churches but I think the system needs to be dismantled.
Many of the comments here talk about “all the things” that a pastor has to do. IMO all of those things should be shared by those who are members of that community. The problem is that the system causes the members of the community to believe that the pastor should be doing those things because he is paid to do those things and the pastor to believe that he should be doing all those things because he is being compensated. Perhaps one reason most Christian’s are unaware of what spiritual gifts are bestowed upon them is because of the system that we have created – it seems to insinuate that “the working body” of the church is made up of a few people who are on staff. I know they are far and few between but there are groups of Christians meeting in the world where there is not a paid staff and where the work of ministry is done by everyone in the group so it is possible to do it differently. In addition, it appears to me that a lot of “the things that have to be done” in churches today are things that have to be done to keep “the system” running and “the system” seems to resemble a country club a lot of times with all of it’s internal programs and activities.
I am always hearing that there is a problem these days getting college aged and young adults to attend/get involved in a local church but they aren’t the only ones. Many middle aged and older adults, like myself, who have devoted most of their lives to “the church” are leaving the church (if not physically, then emotionally) because it has become more of a hindrance than a help in our spiritual journey.
August 6, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Zach Roberts
Matt,
Yeah – that’s the down side to online discourse. I am certainly not a Pauline legalist. In fact, I disagree with Paul regularly, but with a sense of collegiality and respect of course.
To answer Mike’s question: ‘What do you mean by ‘making a living’?
I don’t deny at all that this includes being paid a salary. In my mind making a living means “living” in a larger sense. It means finding fulfillment, peace, creativity, etc. in that which I set my hands to.
August 6, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Mike Griesheimer
Ah, in that case, yes, I agree, we are going about things completely the wrong way. We will NEVER find fulfillment, peace, creativity, etc, when we focus on a church (i.e. a group of people who meet in a specified building). They can certainly complement and mature a private Christian’s walk, but they will not do it for them.
I think that kind of falls into the category of our wrong expectations of what a church is, though. We have to remember that the church is us, not a building. We have to remember that when we get together, all we’re really doing is hanging out with people just as messed up and screwed up as ourselves. I think that when we remember that, and we extend grace to each other, that’s when we can unite and become one under the banner of Jesus Christ.