Vampires?
6 Mar 2004
I am tired of christian speakers telling us the day of the paid pastor is over. I have heard speakers at pastors conferences, who on the main stage, without any qualification or gentleness, say you’re all going to be out of a job in a post-christian context.
Now they may be right, but what a crass, insensitive and stupid thing to do, to come to a pastors conference, with people struggling to pastor, who have sacrificed jobs and way more to serve communities of God’s people, and throw that in their face. Now what bugs me the most is the vampiric nature of this, so many speakers who get paid by people like me, sucking up our finances, to bring us the good news that we are irrelevant.
I long for the person, who says you know what guys and girls, you may not have a job in the future, but here is the good news, look at my life, I get paid by this real job and here is real community of new believers I am in involved in, there is is hope. I’m tired of people telling us to scrap all we are doing, and they are not doing anything else other than tell people to scrap what they are doing.
Now when someone shows me how they have got a real job (not through a trust, or denomination or pseudo christian group), and grown a real community, serving the poor and each other, with new believers…that I would sign up for, and might have to one day.
But…big but…if I get a job, if we grow a church community, if it has lots of new christians who need looking after…oh dear, how do we care for them, I wonder what the church has done for the last 2000 years…wow, seems sometimes the church paid people a stipend to care for new churches with new believers…maybe I could do that…oops I did that already. And maybe I will need to again.
One reaon we have no pastors for the future, is that we have made it something not worth aspiring to, it is not a noble calling, to be a priest to and serve a people, and community. When will we offer hope, and not criticism, by getting off our butts and being missional and building the church of Jesus, and offering an alternative, and not just theory.
Tagged: Key-Posts
22 comments
Trackback
Comment by Chris Marlow
2.33 pm on 6 Mar 2004
Great thoughts, I’m sick of hearing the same comments…I know many “paid” pastors who have given up a lot of material value to serve their community.
Comment by andy chamberlain
6.57 pm on 6 Mar 2004
Speaking as a ‘paid’ pastor, I have to say I think the idea that ‘the paid pastor is finished’ is a load of rubbish. Certainly in the newer church networks.
The trouble with this line is it misunderstands why the pastor is paid. Believe me, there are very few people who do church leadership for the money. Why? Because church leadership tends to require people of a certain ability, and those people can command higher salaries in the secular market. Also, because it is a vocation. You talk to people in paid minsitry, sometimes they find it desparately hard to do what they do, but they love it and feel called to it.
No, the reason some people are paid for minsitry is to allow them to do the job, they are paid in order to release them from the need to earn money from secular employment. This does not mean everyone in church should get paid, but if you try to run a church and do a full time job as well, it will wear you out in the end.
That said, what should die a death (and is I think) is the idea that the pastor should do everything, and is good at everything. What nonsense! It’s unbiblical, and impractical.
Pastors will always need time to ‘pastor’ and time is money. So lets ensure that people are released to do the job they are called to do by God. I probably earn about 50% of my income compared to when I was in full time securlar employment. That’s not partiucularly unusual. I love to do it, I’m called to do it, but i need time to do it, and I need to feed my family as well!
Comment by john
3.33 am on 7 Mar 2004
jase,
i am just tired of talk at times, not enough people doing. brian mclaren spoke at an event in cincy and made a comment that it just didnt matter if you were paid or not big or little, what amttered was your heart and intent and action, i think a few people were made a little uncomfortable, anyway thanks for the post i agree
Comment by Andrew Wallis
11.16 am on 9 Mar 2004
So it is this old chestnut again!
Maybe I can contribute something from the point of view that I am someone who has stated that the days of the ‘professional’ pastor are coming to an end.
If we look at where we have arrived from, much of what we now have in terms of professional pastors is inherited from the rather rude arrival of Christendom with Constantine, and the need to have people in positions of power on order to organise a state religion. The Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin et al) only served to compound the problem, though speaking of the priesthood of all believers actually still bought into and practiced the need to have professional clergy in order to continue to keep control and sure up the state religion.
So now that we have some context, let me clarify what I think some people are referring to. There is a desire to move away from a Christendom mentality when it comes to being church. There is also a questioning of whether it is correct to expect, or may I even suggest, demand payment for serving others. I have lost count of conversations I have had with pastors who live with an expectation that they should be paid! Where has that come from?
Jason, here’s what I wrestle with – is there a way we can imagine church in which everyone is still taken care of, where the functions of the church still happen but it is possible not to need a paid professional(s)? Now I accept that I currently speak as a paid professional, but I am seriously trying to reduce my hours in the paid employment of the church and while I am still bi-vocational in that I spend one day a week working in a prison I want to see that increase.
So what am I saying? I suppose it is primarily to do with re-imagining church. If on the one hand we say and subscribe to the fact that Jesus is the head of the church and the Holy Spirit is the vicar of the church then what role is there for us? Just because there is historical precedent doesn’t necessarily mean it is right?
Of course being called by God to pastor people is an enormous privilege and honour, but I wonder if we can tease it apart from the necessity to get paid?
Lots of questions, and I agree that how this is communicated is so important but I wonder if we need to do some more hard thinking and imagining on this subject.
Comment by Jason Clark
11.20 am on 9 Mar 2004
Hi Andrew, Thanks for the comments. You’ve been saying this for some, time, and my challenge to you is lead the way. We need people who will get jobs and show us what this could be like, to offer pastors and churches hope. I can see how there is going to less room for paid pastors in the future, and how I may not be able to or have to be. But we need people who will do it. So when are you going to? :-)
Jason
Comment by Andrew Wallis
12.53 pm on 9 Mar 2004
Jason,
I’m trying to. You know what is difficult is how easy it is to get sucked into the Xian ghetto, and so then become ‘blighted’ in the world’s eyes when it comes to employment. So I wonder if the only available route is entreprenureal?
Here’s the other dilema, in all that we do we want to do a good job, so it is about finding balance – can I do what I currently do – well – if I am also trying to do well at another job?
Then add in Gordon Fee’s comments at Bournemouth that we should rip the word office off our doors and replace them with the word study and it get’s confusing.
I suppose it forces us to re-examine what the role of a pastor is doesn’t it?
I think also there is a distinction between professional and paid professional – don’t you?
musings from the west!
Comment by andy chamberlain
9.11 pm on 9 Mar 2004
I think I would repeat my point about being paid as just being a way to free someone to do something. I think there is a case for arguing that pastors could be part time, and also there is a case for saying that pastors should find some way to have on going connection with the world. Working one day a week in prison is a good way to do that.
We don’t want the old Chrsitendom “Command and control” system, but I think, perversely an unpaid pastoral leadership might lead to that in that some of the responsibility for oversight, seeking God’s will, presenting God’s work to people will be centralized around a (paid) ‘Head Office’ who keep a tight grip on the way things function. That is, I believe, how the mormons work, they have no paid pastoral staff. Certainly Vineyard is a billion miles from the mormons(!)
Two more quick points. First what is the problem with paid staff anyway? Pastoral staff (certainly in the Vineyard model) are paid from gifts in to the church, it’s not a million miles from how Paul received some of his support.
Second, one of Andrew W’s comments provokes an even bigger debate I think.When he said “I suppose it forces us to re-examine the role of the pastor doesn’t it?” Indeed it does, although not directly as a consequence of not being paid. I think Andrew alluded to this debate with his comment about Jesus being the head of the church and the Holy Spirit being the Vicar of the church. I am in ongoing debate with people about the ‘right’ structure for church, and the nature of leadership. Much of it is at odds with my apprenticeship within the Vineyard and before then. I believe Senior Pastors have responsibility for those who follow them, in some sense, and with that authority. Does that die with the post-Christendom model?
Comment by Andrew Wallis
11.07 am on 10 Mar 2004
Andrew,
Quote
I am in ongoing debate with people about the ‘right’ structure for church, and the nature of leadership. Much of it is at odds with my apprenticeship within the Vineyard and before then.
End Quote
Couple of thoughts. In the quest for the “right” structure I wonder if this isn’t a never ending rabbit trail.
How a church community is structured is such a minor issue – IMHO. The mistake seems to be to look at models and then assess whether they will work or not for us – and by that applying them carte blanche (and probably behind that assessment is the issue of success – but that is a whole other subject!)
Rather we should be organic in our approach realising we are in a unique situation with a unique set of people in a specific time and place so what we are attempting to build will reflect that and the only question is if it is working and how can we refine it so that it can further facilitate what God has called us to do.
Second could you clarify what you mean by a lot of what you have been talking about (presumably structure and role) is at odds with what you have learnt in the Vineyard?
Cheers
Comment by andy chamberlain
12.07 am on 11 Mar 2004
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for continuing to work on this one with me. Apologies for rambling a bit now…
With regard to the ‘right’ structure for church being a rabbit trail – you may well be right. It seems to me that different church structures are explicit or implicit in scripture, and different groups can point to different scriptures to ‘prove’ their point.
Let me as well clarify my point about the way Vineyard sees authority and governance in the church vs other views.
A little context will, I hope help. I came to the Vineyard from a Baptist background. I saw a very democratic structure used to allow people to go with or reject the will of the pastor and any leadership team, be they deacons or elders. Decision making took months or years, and the pastor was sometimes reduced to the role of persuader – tryign to make the case for things to the church. Additionally, a number of people were able to promote theological views and opinions that the pastor was expressly opposed to. So a ‘charismatic’ pastor was faced with a small group of highly conservative dispensationalist people, who were busy trashing the Vineyard, amongst others.
Then I came to the Vineyard, where there is an explicit and implicit position that the Senior Pastoral team (Mr and Mrs XXXXX usually) are THE authority in the church. They set vision and direction, they are in charge. People do not choose whether or not to accept pastoral authority, the pastors run the church, and are in charge and expect people who follow them to come under their authority. Even the arrangement whereby the pastors carry the Vineyard name enforce this approach.
Now I quite liked that approach, and everything I have seen since has reinforced it in me.But it is at odds with anyone who belives that the whole congregation for example make decisions. And it can cause trouble for intercessor/prophets who claim to have words from God. Even the church planter training pack contains material on how to deal with prophets who will not accept the authority of the pastor.
Incidentally, it seems to me that the Vineyard will always, potentially, have a tough time with prophets and intercessors. I can see three reasons for this and there may be more:
1. Prophet/intercessors tend to trust their connection with God and will use ‘thus says the Lord’ as a form of prefix or suffix to what they are saying. This makes Vineyard types very uncomfortable – we prefer phrases like ‘Perhaps God is saying this…’ or ‘possibly the Lord is doing that…’or even ‘Well, it might be God..’
2. Within the Vineyard we do Good News about the church. The church grows, God moves. churches are planted, implicit is the idea that God is blessing our little bit of the church. Many other people operate in what I would call ‘permanent emergency’ usually involving bad news for the church and it’s weaknesses and complacency. This also is uncomfortable for Vineyard people – for us church works! (more or less)
3.Prophet/intercessor’s tend to be viewed as contenders for the leadership and direction of the church. This rubs us up the wrong way because we have a ‘pastor is in charge’ culture in the Vineeyard, and some theology to back it up.
Comment by ScottB
6.40 pm on 11 Mar 2004
Andrew W wrote, “If on the one hand we say and subscribe to the fact that Jesus is the head of the church and the Holy Spirit is the vicar of the church then what role is there for us? Just because there is historical precedent doesn’t necessarily mean it is right?”
It’s not just historical precedent – it’s also biblical precedent. Paul was supported by the churches that he planted along with being bivocational, and defended his right to make a living by preaching the gospel – although he chose not to exercise that right in some cases. Also, it seems to me that your statement is advocating a sort of mob mentality in the church, which is based on the assumption that the Holy Spirit will exercise governance. The biblical model of leadership was vested in gifted individuals, be they apostles, elders, judges, or whoever. In an atmosphere with a leadership vacuum, anything goes – and that’s just as oppressive as a controlling hierarchy.
Comment by Andrew Wallis
11.16 pm on 11 Mar 2004
Scott,
Sorry I must be miscommunicating. What I am critiquing is the Christendom model of leadership in the church and not leadership per se or leadership from a truly Biblical viewpoint. There is a big big difference. Pastoral leadership post Constantine and then post reformation is I would argue a long way from the Bible.
Does that help?
Comment by James
4.28 am on 12 Mar 2004
Jason,
great post and really good discussion in the comments. Mr. Wallis, I really like what you are saying here! Great dialogue everyone!
Comment by andy chamberlain
6.35 am on 12 Mar 2004
Quite warming up to this debate chaps…. ;-)
Andrew W,perhaps I can ask a question.
What, for you does biblical leadership in the church look like? Aside from the issue of paid/unpaid people, how might it be structured, and who holds authority to make decisions?
Well that’s two questions, but I’d value your opinion (and the opinion of others)
Thanks
Andy C
Comment by ScottB
6.42 am on 12 Mar 2004
Andrew – here’s another part of what you said that I’m responding to:
“There is a desire to move away from a Christendom mentality when it comes to being church. There is also a questioning of whether it is correct to expect, or may I even suggest, demand payment for serving others. I have lost count of conversations I have had with pastors who live with an expectation that they should be paid! Where has that come from?”
That’s the part that I’m saying comes, at least in part, from Paul’s statements in 1 Cor. 9, where he says that those who preach the gospel should receive their livelihood from the gospel. Vocational ministry does seem, at least to me, to have solid biblical precedent. It doesn’t seem to me that paid pastoral positions necessitates a Constantinian stance towards hierarchical dominance. If I’m misunderstanding your point, my apologies!
Comment by Andrew Wallis
12.55 pm on 12 Mar 2004
Scott,
I have some problems with your proposed exegsis of 1 Cor 9 as a carte blanche justification for pay.
Can I quote Fee?
1 Cor 9 “serves as one of the key passages that make it clear that those who give themselves to the work of the ministry are deserving of material support. The whole reason for the argument is to assser that Paul’s giving up of these rights does not mean he is entitled to them. In a day like ours such rights usually mean a salary and ‘benefits.’ On the other hand, the reason Paul feels compelled to make this kind of defense is that he has given up these rights. Contemporary ministers seldom feel compelled so to argue! THe key to everything must be for us what it was for Paul – ‘no hinderance to the gospel.’ For every valid ministry in the church of Jesus Christ this must be the bottom line. All to often, one fears, the objective of this text is lost in concerns over ‘rights’ that reflect bald professionalism rather than a concern for the gospel itself.”
I think that flogs the pay issue to death! It was a minor point I was trying to make, and rather what I am critiquing is our blind acceptance of a Christendom model of leadership.
Comment by Andrew Wallis
1.05 pm on 12 Mar 2004
Andy,
Thanks for coming back to me. My thinking has ben impacted by Winn Griffin who was John Wimber’s theologian in the early days of the Vineyard. I am going to quote him extensively as it begins to answer your comments – I hope so anyways. I am quoting from within the context of a discourse of spiritual gifts/gracelets by the way…
“Every believer has a role that will involve them in the activities of the life of a community. These roles are not gifts/gracelets. As an example, everyone should give financially to that which God calls them to give. On occassion God may visit this role as he sends the gracelelt of mercy (Romans 12:6) through you. The following language can be useful in trying to decipher how gracelets work out in everyday life.
Roles – When you practice the activities you see in Scripture by your own natural means, we would call that participating in a role. The rational mind is in constant use.
Gracelets – A gracelet is an occassional manifestation of a gift/gracelet given by God for a specific purpose. It is transitional.
Ministries – As God continues to use you by giving you a gracelet he may be directing you toward a call or mission.
What I (W Griffin) am suggesting is a way of thinking about the Spirit that allows him to be in charge of directing us into the situations that he wants to call us to. When we are acting on that call, we are gifted (carriers/conduits of the gracelets). When the situation is complete, we no longer “have” (in the sense of ownership) that gift or gracelet.
The church is not leaderless. Its leaders is the Holy Spirit. This conception of gifts/gracelets can help us rethink and redifine what leadership in the church will look like.”
Over to you or others
Comment by ScottB
4.45 pm on 12 Mar 2004
Andrew,
Just out of curiosity – can you verify that the second sentence is quoted accurately? To me, it’s an awkward construction that would make more sense if Fee is saying “does not mean he is not entitled to them.” Otherwise, there’s no contrast implicit in the following “On the other hand,” statement. They’re both the same hand, if you will. I’m not sure what Fee would be trying to say by structuring the argument in that way. Besides, he states openly in the first sentence that “those who give themselves to the work of the ministry are deserving of material support,” which would seem to support my interpretation of the passage.
At any rate, I’d argue that, if Paul doesn’t feel as though his rights are real, the argument has no rhetorical force. His sacrifice in foregoing those rights only means something if he is, in fact, giving something up. Otherwise, the argument carries no weight – “Look Corinthian church! I don’t exercise these rights because I’m not entitled to them anyway!” Instead, I read that Paul says, “Look, I have the right – in fact, the Lord commands it – to make my living from preaching the gospel. But I have chosen not to exercise that right.” I’m curious about how you would then exegete 9:14, where Paul states that providing for the needs of those preaching the gospel is a command of God.
At any rate, I don’t want to detract from the point you were trying to make. I agree wholeheartedly with Jason’s point of not devaluing those who have selflessly – in many cases, probably most – given up the possibility for lucrative careers in the marketplace to serve God’s people in the best way that they know how. Should they be supported by those they serve? You bet – if the church is able to afford it. It’s, as has already been mentioned, the conscious decision on the part of a congregation to free someone to be able to devote his or her full energies into the work of God’s kingdom. I also want to avoid the trappings of Constantinian hierarchical leadership structures, but I don’t think that one necessarily follows the other. Let’s not devalue the work of those who are serving honestly and lovingly with the support of the body of Christ.
Thanks for your thoughts – they’re stimulating to be sure!
Comment by Jason Clark
4.55 pm on 12 Mar 2004
Thanks Scott. I have been reading your posts with interest. My original point was that the day of the paid pastor isn’t over. Andrew is paid and has another paid staff member :-)
Through church history and most religions it is normal when groups get to a certain size to free a few people from the need to provide income so they can support the needs of the community.
We may have less paid pastors as we have less churches and smaller ones. But if a church grows in future, they are going to pay someone at some point, whether it’s for admin, business management of pastoring. There is nothing intrinsically constantinian or modern in paid staff in a church community.
You can have paid staff who are not leaders and leaders who are not paid staff, or leaders who are also paid.
The nature of leadership is not based on pay (I’m sure that wasn’t what you were saying Andrew). There is an issue of spirit led leadership. It’s very trendy to say “we need to spirit to lead us” and the church has been there before, and we abidcate leadership. leadership is incarnational, the spirit leads incarnationally, Jesus is the head of the church, a body made of real people.
We more than ever need less hierachy, team leadership, but we still need women and men who will listen to the spirit and lead us.
Comment by Andrew Wallis
5.07 pm on 12 Mar 2004
Scott,
Oops good spot – my typo
The “not” is missing. So it should read The whole reason for the argument is to asssert that Paul’s giving up of these rights does not mean he is not entitled to them.
Pay is not the issue for me rather structures/heirarchies.
This challenges me hugely as I wrestle with a growing church community that requires stuff to be done – most of which is admin actually so in my staffing arrangements we are admin dominant.
Comment by James
10.43 pm on 12 Mar 2004
I think this is one of the best dialogues in a comment section of a blog I have ever read. As one who is making a serious attempt at co-pastoring a new community of faith I really struggle with both sides of this issue. I follow this type of discussion closely because it is such a thorny issue and one that I have tasted the bitter side of recently. I will freely admit that my recent experiences slant my view of this issue heavily so take my comments with a grain of salt. (I recently left a church whose leadership team threatened to take the youth groups mission trip fund raising money to make building repairs because they did not have enough monthly income to pay the bills and a few months later took a “step of faith†(a.k.a. a loan on their building) and hired a new pastor with a compensation package over $100k/year). This issue is much deeper than my brains lung capacity to handle so I enjoy listening to others flesh this out.
The thing that bothers me is the idea that homiletics is equated with “taking care of the needs of the congregationâ€. (I know, I know, it’s more than just preaching, but are not a lot of the other aspects of the job equally done, or expected to be done, by the members of the congregation? As someone commented above we can’t expect the pastor to do everything, even if he is the only one paid.) Don’t get me wrong I value good biblical teaching and preaching and am well aware of the amount of time that can go into that but what makes that more valuable than the other functional roles that make the congregational gatherings for worship go smoothly? Why do we encourage and recruit people who have all of the pressures of family and full time vocations to “volunteer†to lead Sunday school classes and small group Bible studies? Are these things some how not really taking care of the needs of the congregation? At what level of teaching/preaching do we arrive at the place where we can accept (expect?) to be paid for our services? This “professionalism” of pastors leads to the invitational form of evangelism, (“come to my church and hear my pastorâ€) instead of the incarnational form that I like to believe we are all called to do? I am not against a church supporting a pastor but if it is only (or even primarily) just to preach one day a week I think we have to ask some hard questions about the stewardship of our community’s resources.
Comment by ScottB
4.10 am on 15 Mar 2004
Andrew – thanks for clarification. I definitely agree with your thoughts on needing to reexamine the role of pastor. It’s a thorny issue that is exacerbated by the consumeristic culture facing many of us in Western societies. If the church can pay someone to be spiritual for the body… So I’d propose that the issue isn’t just leadership model per se, although that’s huge and I don’t want to discount it. However, I’d also argue that the issue is, in part, a consumeristic stance towards community on the part of large portions of the body.
Jason – great thought. Pay shouldn’t equate to leadership. The needs of the community should dictate allocation of resources, which may or may not align with paying those whom God has gifted with leadership. It may instead mean paying administratively gifted people, as Andrew has pointed out.
Comment by Roy
12.49 pm on 7 Nov 2004
free xxx webcam site mature pussy young dick free webcam sluts free hot webcam girl free webcam girl free webcam feed mature busty women amateur webcam pic mature porn gallery mature women in pantie mature sexy black women free xxx webcam free streaming webcam free nude webcam free mature slut gallery swinger amateur housewife mature pussy pic free live webcam show webcam software cam pic web yahoo mature babes mature pussy and ass nude mature women hot sexy mature women amateur mature group sex college webcam lesbian mature strap free webcam site mature women fuck black mature porn free webcam gallery free nude teen webcam milf site brunette mature pussy mature model
Comments are now closed.