Pastors or Hirelings?

[The Liturgist]

When I asked the question about the board I was thinking not so much of pastoral issues in the congregation, but more of things like, for example, when board members bully the minister (a situation I have had to navigate for myself). If the accountability body is the problem... does that leave you nowhere to turn?

I suppose you could do what the Orthodox priest did when he was denied a $1,000 raise and offered a $500 raise (which caused him to be making $4800/mo in 1999-2000, which for Eastern Orthodox priests is an unheard of salary; no one should do this job for the money, but in that church especially, most of the people in the diaspora at least really aren’t, and second jobs are common), and cause a schism. That would be naughty however. If a senior pastor falls out with the board, or the Methodist pastor-parish committee, or the vestry of an Episcopalian or ACNA parish, or the Presbyterian Kirk Session, that’s generally a real problem.

In your case you presumably have an archdeacon and a bishop who ought to have your back if your vestry or equivalent Australian entity mistreats you. I say “ought” because bishops can be fickle. That said, I would not mind serving in a jurisdiction with an episcopal polity.

Now of course, at frustrating times in our ministry, we might look at Chuck Smith’s “Moses model” and say, you know, I wish I had that kind of power. But then the terrifying aspect of our job comes into mind, at least for me; having spent a lot of time among Eastern Christians, I believe that God will hold me accountable for the cure of souls under my care, and if I make a mistake and feed His sheep poison instead of proper food, that is a scary thought. One thing I like about Orthodox bishops is that nearly all of them were either the abbots of monasteries or held a rank equivalent to abbot before but served in parishes, before becoming bishops. They tend to be otherworldly, they are often dreadful at some aspects of pastoral care, but they have a certain detachment, so for the most part, one can trust them, with some exceptions (every church has pastors with their hands in the cookie jar).

Now, I found the UCC very frustrating; I joined because in 2013 there was an active group called Faithful and Welcoming which I liked, but that group has died and a new conformity has set in across the church, even as it continues to shrink. There are still good UCC parishes (I love the Magyar Reformed Church in Long Beach; their Hungarian language service in particular has beautiful hymns, and the services are solidly traditional, but not being Hungarian, I can’t exactly serve that community very well). This is why I am blessed to be able to have the resources to pursue my current course, which is to found a liturgical church and then attempt to affiliate with a denomination that suits us (and right now the CCCC looks promising). But I never had a falling out with my parish board, because I was a junior minister, like a curate, and I always got along with the equivalent of the rector. When he retired I took advantage of the opportunity to move on, because I could see where things were headed had I stayed around (I probably could have been senior minister, but with a shrinking congregation and financial problems a future inevitability, and an excess of complacency, I did not feel qualified to turn it around).

 

[topher694]

So your ministry began with a house church and then expanded into a permanent facility?

Yeah, we were in our house for several years, it worked, but wasn't ideal. God opened up a door supernaturally for a permanent building, so we renovated then moved in, but we've always kept a degree of our home church upbringing.

 

[Paidiske]

In your case you presumably have an archdeacon and a bishop who ought to have your back if your vestry or equivalent Australian entity mistreats you. I say “ought” because bishops can be fickle. That said, I would not mind serving in a jurisdiction with an episcopal polity.

Yes, fortunately my archdeacon and bishop have been excellent through the whole thing.

Now of course, at frustrating times in our ministry, we might look at Chuck Smith’s “Moses model” and say, you know, I wish I had that kind of power.

Yes and no. I genuinely believe that ministry is the work of everyone in the church, that leadership should be shared, and I don't really want to be an autocrat. What I find difficult is:

- There are a bunch of expectations - from government, from the diocesan church, from the parish, from the public - and there are not necessarily the resources or supports to do all the things. The job has changed a lot in recent decades, and if anything I have less support than those who came before me. I get very frustrated at feeling like - as one colleague said to me this week - we're making bricks without straw.
- In a similar vein, much of this is invisible to the average parishioner. I get very tired of, no matter what I do or how well I do it, it being received with nothing but criticism.
- I also find, as a younger person in ministry, I'm often dismissed, belittled or patronised. The generation gap seems to foster a lack of respect. (And there is that complacency you mentioned...) And while I don't want to be up on a pedestal, nor do I want to be undermined or ignored. There ought to be a healthy middle ground!

As an aside, this is the sort of conversation I'd like to have more of here; where we're able to be real and share about our experiences in ministry. So thank you!

 

[The Liturgist]

There are a bunch of expectations - from government,

In the US at least the government is hands off, for the time being. I have heard the Cardinal Pell sex abuse incident along with historic abuse of Native Australians by ecclesiastical entities has resulted in some draconian interference in Australian churches, including discussions of abolishing or curtailing pastor-penitent privilege.

On that note, I have a concern about surveillance being used to illegally violate the seal of the confessional in any country. This is not a problem for me, because Congregationalists are not inclined to do auricular confession, to put it mildly, but I fear for my colleagues in the Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches and their parishioners, as all of those churches do auricular confession to various degrees. I think increased use of a generic confessional statement will be needed. An Orthodox friend of mine told me he attended an Orthodox parish where the priest spoke very little English, and so when confessing, he would read a statement in which he would categorically accuse himself of a comprehensive range of moral failures, a bit like the confiteor in the 1662 BCP (“We have failed to do what we ought to have done, and done that which we ought not to have done”), and the priest would then absolve him. This might be the only safe way for people to confess as privacy becomes harder to come by, unless we build confessionals inside Farraday cages with acoustic padding, like the conference room in the 2010 remake of Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy.

 

[The Liturgist]

- I also find, as a younger person in ministry, I'm often dismissed, belittled or patronised. The generation gap seems to foster a lack of respect. (And there is that complacency you mentioned...) And while I don't want to be up on a pedestal, nor do I want to be undermined or ignored. There ought to be a healthy middle ground!

Indeed, that is a real problem. I felt because of my traditionalism that colleagues in the UCC either saw me as an amusing relic, a misguided quixotic fool,

As an aside, this is the sort of conversation I'd like to have more of here; where we're able to be real and share about our experiences in ministry. So thank you!

I am glad we were able to do this. I will continue posting here, and I think we can get others to join us. I don’t mind answering tough questions however. I once met a non-denom guy who thought ordination was unBiblical, and so I very gently encouraged him to read the book of Acts (thank Heaven for St. Luke; Paul also references ordination but less explictly. By the way, there is an old tradition that Luke recorded the narratives of Paul, and Mark the narratives of Peter; there is also a tradition that the Cenacle was in a house owned by Mark the Evangelist, and I personally am convinced the crusader church built on the alleged site is, as the Jews claim, actually the tomb of King David; I think the real cenacle is at the other traditional location, which is now a Syriac Orthodox monastery I desperately want to visit).

Yes and no. I genuinely believe that ministry is the work of everyone in the church, that leadership should be shared, and I don't really want to be an autocrat.

That is the right attitude. I suppose I have a dark streak to repent of, because watching Jude Law in The Young Pope felt liberating. But this is probably the result of having worked in a church in which of my colleagues, my only friends were my boss and a few leaders of ethnic congregations. The UCC was not a good fit for me. If this church plant does not work out, I think I will work for the UMC or a traditional Anglican or Lutheran church, or perhaps try my luck at the Orthodox, Assyrians or Eastern Catholics (but I am unmarried; I have never been married, when I was 22 I decided I should remain celibate until marriage, and at this point I probably will commit to celibacy, however, it can be hard to be a celibate Orthodox priest without being a monk; it is not impossible however). One can be married in any of those churches however, with the possible exception of the Maronites.

 

[Paidiske]

In the US at least the government is hands off, for the time being. I have heard the Cardinal Pell sex abuse incident along with historic abuse of Native Australians by ecclesiastical entities has resulted in some draconian interference in Australian churches, including discussions of abolishing or curtailing pastor-penitent privilege.

The law has changed here so that there is mandatory reporting of child abuse, even if it is disclosed in confession. The problem with this, in my experience, is not that it interferes with confession but that it means people simply don't disclose if they know it will be reported and they're not ready to face all that that involves. (And by "people" here I mean victims).

But to give you an example of what I mean, because the government is now taking child safety in churches much more seriously than it has in the past, my parish was recently required to complete an audit, which involved answering pages and pages of questions, including things like:

- How does your organisation raise community awareness about child abuse? (I found this one particularly ironic, given that it's the wider community that has had to raise the church's awareness, in general).
- How is child safety captured in your organisation’s performance development framework?
- What measures does your organisation have in place to ensure its workforce reflects the diversity of the children engaged in its activities?
- How does your organisation recognise, respect and support the belief that cultural identity is fundamental to a child’s safety and wellbeing?

I mean, some of what we were being asked was fair enough, but for a little parish with one staff person and - crucially - currently no children who worship here regularly, it felt like we were answering things that were really aimed at much bigger churches with children's programmes and all the rest. (I mean, we don't have an organisational "performance development framework"!)

 

[The Liturgist]

The law has changed here so that there is mandatory reporting of child abuse, even if it is disclosed in confession. The problem with this, in my experience, is not that it interferes with confession but that it means people simply don't disclose if they know it will be reported and they're not ready to face all that that involves. (And by "people" here I mean victims).

But to give you an example of what I mean, because the government is now taking child safety in churches much more seriously than it has in the past, my parish was recently required to complete an audit, which involved answering pages and pages of questions, including things like:

- How does your organisation raise community awareness about child abuse? (I found this one particularly ironic, given that it's the wider community that has had to raise the church's awareness, in general).
- How is child safety captured in your organisation’s performance development framework?
- What measures does your organisation have in place to ensure its workforce reflects the diversity of the children engaged in its activities?
- How does your organisation recognise, respect and support the belief that cultural identity is fundamental to a child’s safety and wellbeing?

I mean, some of what we were being asked was fair enough, but for a little parish with one staff person and - crucially - currently no children who worship here regularly, it felt like we were answering things that were really aimed at much bigger churches with children's programmes and all the rest. (I mean, we don't have an organisational "performance development framework"!)

This to me seems to be a violation of freedom of religion guaranteed under the UN Charter of Human Rights, to which Australia is a signatory. If I were you I would consider working abroad. You know if I was an Anglican priest, I would love to work in the incredibly beautiful cluster of churches in the City of London. The C of E has lots of bureaucracy around safeguarding, but it is internal rather than externally imposed. And as an added plus they actually piblish their liturgical texts online.

(Although correct me if I am wrong, my understanding is that the 1662 BCP remains optional in Australia)

By the way, is this mainly a state government or a federal government thing? Because if it is state level, you could hypothetically move to a different archdiocese. Presumably not Sydney. But Tasmania could be thrilling. I would love to have a parish in Tasmania. If a devil happened to pass by outside the window in a service, I could exclaim “Behold, the enemy, stalking us like a roving lion!”

(sorry, the night before Sunday the work causes me to be a bit giddy and crack stupid jokes as soon as I have finished my planning for the next day’s service)

By the way on a more sombre note I hear the Tasmanian devils are dying off due to a horrible virus which causes tumors on their face. It makes me very sad.

 

[Paidiske]

This to me seems to be a violation of freedom of religion guaranteed under the UN Charter of Human Rights, to which Australia is a signatory.

There is arguably a case to be made that there's a violation of freedom of religion, when it comes to mandatory reporting of abuse disclosed in confession. I think the government has taken the view that this is the lesser evil, compared to the systemic cover up of child sexual abuse (which has been the historic reality), and I find it hard to argue with that view.

I think there is an important commitment to be made to the wider public, though, in saying, "There is no corner, no matter how dark, quiet or private, in which we will shield a paedophile." After all that's happened, I think that should be non-negotiable.

If I were you I would consider working abroad.

I have, although not for these reasons. In fact, before accepting my current role, I applied for a position in Kuwait. (Didn't get it and knew I wasn't really senior enough for a job where you have no colleagues in the same country, but wanted to put myself out there as willing to work in the diocese of Cypress and the Gulf).

You know if I was an Anglican priest, I would love to work in the incredibly beautiful cluster of churches in the City of London. The C of E has lots of bureaucracy around safeguarding, but it is internal rather than externally imposed. And as an added plus they actually piblish their liturgical texts online.

I've never been to London, but on the whole I don't find that idea appealing. The only English job I was rather interested in was the role of chaplain to Lee Abbey, which was being advertised about the time I was looking, but they told me as an Australian citizen I was ineligible to apply.

(Although correct me if I am wrong, my understanding is that the 1662 BCP remains optional in Australia)

It is authorised and many parishes do still use some of its services on a regular basis.

By the way, is this mainly a state government or a federal government thing? Because if it is state level, you could hypothetically move to a different archdiocese. Presumably not Sydney. But Tasmania could be thrilling.

Mainly state, but most of the states are moving in the same direction. Tasmania is going in a very Sydney-wards direction, though; I'm not sure the current bishop of Tasmania would be willing to licence me in his diocese. Brisbane, Perth, or Adelaide would be more likely options; and the rural dioceses are always crying out for clergy. Just this week I was asked whether I'd consider a rural parish that's about to become vacant (but I am really not a country girl).

I would love to have a parish in Tasmania. If a devil happened to pass by outside the window in a service, I could exclaim “Behold, the enemy, stalking us like a roving lion!”

Parts of Tasmania are lovely; I could imagine being happy working in Hobart. (Cold, though; and I don't like the cold!) You don't really see Tasmanian devils out and about often, though.

(sorry, the night before Sunday the work causes me to be a bit giddy and crack stupid jokes as soon as I have finished my planning for the next day’s service)

I just finished hosting an 8-year-old's birthday party, after Sunday morning services; so I am very tired and probably in the right mood for stupid jokes!

By the way on a more sombre note I hear the Tasmanian devils are dying off due to a horrible virus which causes tumors on their face. It makes me very sad.

Yes. It's not helped by the fact that they're very aggressive and fight and bite one another a lot, so that tends to spread the disease through any population. There are big conservation efforts but I don't know what the future holds for the devils.

 

[Sam91]

I agree with you. But you are speaking in terms of the office, and I am speaking in terms of the gift. Yes, there are pastors who are truly pastors saddled with all those other responsibilities in the office, too. And it takes the gift of administration to effectively delegate responsibilities to others. In such a case, it is incumbent upon the administrator to come alongside the pastor and help.

But the OP is not about the office per se, but the difference between pastors and hirelings. The office makes it easier for hirelings to step into the role of pastor for which they are not gifted.

Yup.

I attend Church weekly and go to many of its events. I go to a ladies Bible study group midweek too. In 2.5 years, if I add up all the conversation I have had with my pastor it would be about 5 minutes, maybe less. It would be less for the elders.

You'd think this means that I go to a huge church. I think out congregation is 300-400. Probably 200 attend each week. I'm not really shepherded nor discipled.

 

[AlexDTX]

Yup.

I attend Church weekly and go to many of its events. I go to a ladies Bible study group midweek too. In 2.5 years, if I add up all the conversation I have had with my pastor it would be about 5 minutes, maybe less. It would be less for the elders.

You'd think this means that I go to a huge church. I think out congregation is 300-400. Probably 200 attend each week. I'm not really shepherded nor discipled.

Take heart, Sam. If you are born again with the Holy Spirit in you, He is your shepherd. He is the only Good Shepherd and he will bring people into your life that can help you know how to hear his voice and follow him.

 

[bekkilyn]

I've had good luck in making appointments with my pastors over the years whenever I needed to sit down and have a deeper discussion about something. It guarantees that they will have that time available to focus on your conversation.

 

[Paidiske]

You'd think this means that I go to a huge church. I think out congregation is 300-400. Probably 200 attend each week. I'm not really shepherded nor discipled.

From my perspective, that's a huge church. In that kind of sized church, I would expect much pastoral care to be done by lay people leading small groups or the like, because it's just too big for a minister to have that kind of relationship with everyone.

(For comparison, I have an average weekly attendance of about 40 people).

 

[Sam91]

From my perspective, that's a huge church. In that kind of sized church, I would expect much pastoral care to be done by lay people leading small groups or the like, because it's just too big for a minister to have that kind of relationship with everyone.

(For comparison, I have an average weekly attendance of about 40 people).

Yeah, it must seem huge. I was meaning compared to those mega churches.

We have two pastors, some elders and then some deacons. Not sure how many of each. There is a children and families co-ordinator too.

There is a discipleship program for newer Christians but think we are supposed to just support each other. Our small groups is where we pray and support each other.

@bekkilyn I think I could do that if it was about something important. However, being female both pastors would probably be there.

 

[The Liturgist]

I just finished hosting an 8-year-old's birthday party, after Sunday morning services; so I am very tired and probably in the right mood for stupid jokes!

That’s a pretty intense Sunday. I would have to crash out and say “Kid, we’ll celebrate your birthday tomorrow. I’ll buy you extra presents. Gotta sleep now. ::snore::”

 

[The Liturgist]

From my perspective, that's a huge church. In that kind of sized church, I would expect much pastoral care to be done by lay people leading small groups or the like, because it's just too big for a minister to have that kind of relationship with everyone.

(For comparison, I have an average weekly attendance of about 40 people).

I think Park Street Church in my avatar has some incredibly large weekly attendance of over two thousand. But since they are the only church in that entire area of Boston that is traditional Protestant, aside from Old North Church, which is operated in an intentionally inoffensive manner given its national importance and value as a tourist attraction, the figures actually make sense. The building dates from 1708 and is contemporaneous with the Christopher Wren churches in London, many of which did have galleries and impressive capacities.

You are quite right that one minister cannot handle a congregation of 200. In an ideal world, you would have, if it were an Anglican congregation, a vicar, a curate, two deacons, one transitional and one permanent, and two or more lay readers and other laity in liturgical and leadership functions. For example, a verger, with an appropriately impressive verge and ideally a very good sense of timing.

I feel like laity responsibilities where possible should include both a liturgical and pastoral care component, because people will introduce themselves and ask questions of laity who are actively involved in the liturgy, whether they are choristers, or thurifers, or especially ushers. So it makes sense that there be a close connection between the two.

 

[Paidiske]

That’s a pretty intense Sunday. I would have to crash out and say “Kid, we’ll celebrate your birthday tomorrow. I’ll buy you extra presents. Gotta sleep now. ::snore::”

Well, there was some miscommunication between my husband and I. I thought we would do the party on the Saturday, but then he sent out the invitations for the Sunday and it was too late to change them...

Good thing for him, I love him!

You are quite right that one minister cannot handle a congregation of 200. In an ideal world, you would have, if it were an Anglican congregation, a vicar, a curate, two deacons, one transitional and one permanent, and two or more lay readers and other laity in liturgical and leadership functions. For example, a verger, with an appropriately impressive verge and ideally a very good sense of timing.

I feel like laity responsibilities where possible should include both a liturgical and pastoral care component, because people will introduce themselves and ask questions of laity who are actively involved in the liturgy, whether they are choristers, or thurifers, or especially ushers. So it makes sense that there be a close connection between the two.

Or maybe a vicar, a curate in a training role (so they roll over every two or three years), a distinctive deacon who spends half their time elsewhere in a chaplaincy capacity, a part-time administrative assistant and a lay person to run children's and youth ministry. (Paying four full-time clergy, even for a congregation of two hundred, would be a very big ask).

I'd definitely like to encourage more lay preaching. Vergers; outside somewhere like a cathedral there's truly very little need (and I say that as someone who worked her way through seminary as a verger!)

I'm a bit wary of putting too much emphasis on liturgical functions for laity because it's so hard to get laity to do outreach/mission during the rest of the week. I want to build a culture that doesn't have the attitude that if it's not up the front on Sunday morning, it's not real ministry.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well, there was some miscommunication between my husband and I. I thought we would do the party on the Saturday, but then he sent out the invitations for the Sunday and it was too late to change them...

Good thing for him, I love him!

That would certainly help!

Or maybe a vicar, a curate in a training role (so they roll over every two or three years), a distinctive deacon who spends half their time elsewhere in a chaplaincy capacity, a part-time administrative assistant and a lay person to run children's and youth ministry. (Paying four full-time clergy, even for a congregation of two hundred, would be a very big ask).

I'd definitely like to encourage more lay preaching. Vergers; outside somewhere like a cathedral there's truly very little need (and I say that as someone who worked her way through seminary as a verger!)

I'm a bit wary of putting too much emphasis on liturgical functions for laity because it's so hard to get laity to do outreach/mission during the rest of the week. I want to build a culture that doesn't have the attitude that if it's not up the front on Sunday morning, it's not real ministry.

I get where you are coming from. My point isn’t necessarily that a liturgical function should be created for every laic who wishes to contribute, but rather, ideally, where possible, those who have a liturgical function also either have a pastoral function or know the right people to refer inquirers to, because the members of the congregation who have a liturgical role are the most visible and do get approached.

It actually wouldn’t work for me to go the other way, at least not without some preparation, due to the low church nature of congregationalism; there aren’t enough liturgical functions to pass around, unless you have a handbell choir, and those I try to avoid in the congregations over which I ... loom ... due to migraines.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes, I agree that I don't really want people "up the front" who have no pastoral sensitivity at all.

 

[AlexDTX]

I'm a bit wary of putting too much emphasis on liturgical functions for laity because it's so hard to get laity to do outreach/mission during the rest of the week. I want to build a culture that doesn't have the attitude that if it's not up the front on Sunday morning, it's not real ministry.

The problem is the false distinction between clergy and laity. Every believer should be encouraged and equipped to minister to the needs of others.

1Pe_2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Eph 4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

 

[Paidiske]

The problem is the false distinction between clergy and laity. Every believer should be encouraged and equipped to minister to the needs of others.

I completely agree with your second sentence, but that doesn't mean there is no place for differentiated roles,which have existed since the very beginning of the church.