I like where you are taking this discussion. I know the whole notion of defining what my job/role is was suggested by my mentor. But his setting was quite different – large congregation. For me I am directly in the lives of my people a fair bit, but the capacity in which I’m there is more modeling what we should be doing for/with each other as community. So when I say marry a couple, that is easy to quantify as a distinct job. But when I take an afternoon to just be with someone going through a rough time – that is harder to turn around and say I should be paid for. It feels wrong even though that is what is expected (and even what I expect to do in this role). I just find it thorny.

The one way forward I wonder about is as a paid liturgicist. I’m a horrible administrator so really I should be paying my congregation for how crappy a job I do there. But one of my passions is putting together the worship life for our congregation. It is work, but work I love. It is also not something just anyone can do – at least not in a comprehensive way (meaning that it includes mentoring/training, planning, verifying that people are connecting with what we are doing, leading and trouble shooting when things go off the rails).

I’m looking forward to your thoughts.

I don’t think receiving payment, in and of itself, changes the posture of the church. I think the posture of the pastor shapes the posture of the church. I think post-Christian generations are less tolerant of bull shit and fake religious people who claim to know it all. If you are a pastor who happens to spew a lot of that, you’re in trouble. The challenge in balancing full-time paid vs. volunteer or bi-vocational, IMO, is in the expectations of the leader. If you expect them to have formal theological training of any sort, you are going to have to pay them or start free seminaries (which would be cool, but you still have to eat when you study, so money has to come from somewhere). If you don’t carry those expectations, a bi-vocational team or a well organized group of volunteers can lead a faith community very, very well (sometimes better).

I pastor in the Mennonite faith tradition, and we have a long tradition of the priesthood of all believers that goes beyond a slogan. I’m full-time, paid, TEDS educated, ordained, but in our faith community, the people are not passive. Some people still remember what it was like to choose pastors by casting lots. Because of that, they appreciate preaching and teaching from someone who is has theological training, has time to prepare Biblical messages that connect to real life, and who is available to provide leadership/counseling/etc. while also helping to organize the life of the community. To use a business term, I add value to the community. My leadership style is open and flexible. I try to support the community members in their ministry. I never say, “I’m right because I’m a trained pastor, so you have to do what I say” because that is stupid. I’m in my 15th year here, which helps move beyond the “he’s the hired guy” mentality. The congregation has helped my kids grow up, literally, and i try as best as I’m able, with the Spirit’s help, and a great deal of failure and grace, to be a servant of the people. So far it works.

Frank – I think if a minister can successfully define their roles in the kind of terms you describe that goes a long way toward overcoming some of the missional dilemmas we’re touching on. I love that you know you’re not a good administrator : )

Michael – Wonderfully said. I’m so glad we have your perspective here. However, in all fairness many of the rest of us, I think you’d have to admit that Mennonite culture is significantly different than typical Evangelicalism (that “long tradition” you refer to). I know I’m looking toward Mennonites for inspiration in these (and other) areas, as are many others. Thanks for pitching in. I hope you’ll stick around and continue to add your perspective!

i think you stumbled on to a rather important piece here with question #2 – mentors/mentorship. in this area real mentors – not just books by people, which are helpful in a mentor-ish way. the paucity of mentors vis-a-vis missional leadership and bi-vocation probably works in both positive and negative ways…it makes you much more reliant on the vision and calling God has given you and much more reliant on the Holy Spirit, which are really good things. yet i think we might agree that mentorship is a good thing, and can be very helpful, but alas, the dearth of mentors…

in terms of question #3, this is an interesting one, because i believe with the advent of the post-modern transition, the emerging church and missional church, we are increasingly getting away from the dominance that ministers with pastoral gifting and teaching gifts have held for some time…which has lead to “ministry” being much more professional therapeutic or academic…i feel like there is a change afoot – and i witness this in how the essence of my work as a minister has changed – where the essence of “ministering” is leadership- and discipleship-oriented, which in turn releases more people in their giftings – thus giving the ministry back to the people – and in fact, more/better therapeutic ministry is still happening…

Jason,

I totally agree with you that the issue is between the sustainability of a holistic community in tension with the sustainability of an individual leader. But I don’t think that being paid is necessarily the central issue b/c while a church can have a professionalized view of the pastorate it might still drastically under-pay their pastors meaning both are unsustainable. But I can imagine a situation, and believe they exist where the congregation and pastor are not in a ‘professionalized’ situation but s/he is still paid full time. That being said, i agree that post-christian generations want a real person and a professional, and anyone (paid or not) who presents themselves as a professional will lose an audience with the post-christians.

Similarly, while I think this is a very important issue (one of the most important), it is almost impossible to discussion without telling concrete stories of how people discerned their bi-vocation, who they are ministering with, and most importantly, the Christ-like character which sustains both vocations.

And lastly, I’m also co-pastor with David Fitch at Life on the Vine (just to plug that another time…), and we view bi-vocationalism alongside multi-pastorism (if that is a word). Only a multiplicity of leadership (not just leaders in training) can sustain bi-vocational commitments. I’m not really sure an individual leader can be bi-vocation and sustainable without significant help.

Only multiple leadership can balance the two sustainablity issues.

Steven – I would be really interested in hearing who has been most influential in the lives of some of the most influential missional leaders today. I think that would be really telling. As to your other comment…I hope that change is afoot, but in some ways it makes it harder for us ministers, in other ways, easier.

Geoff – Thanks for your insightful comments! Your bit about a church having a professionalized view but still underpaying is excellent. I agree that there are underlying realities at play here, but I’m still going to stick to the idea that money is central, precisely because of what role it plays in our culture for determining the nature and value of work and relationships. I agree wholeheartedly with you about the multiplicity of leaders. The communitarian dynamic of leadership gifts will figure prominently in the next few posts. Thanks so much Geoff. I hope you’ll stick around to continue the conversation!

Now it’s my turn to comment on your series and say, “I probably won’t have much to offer because we think so similarly on this topic,” but I promise to be following and weighing in where and when I can. Thanks for tackling this Jason.

Jason,

Sure, I think money is also central. indeed, we really need a theological critique of money and how our participation in Its circulation either is or is not a participation in Christ. But that is a slightly bigger topic.

However, I’m just pushing against an all too quick equation that says paid pastorates kill the church and unpaid will save it. A similar equation is that any hierarchy is bad in the church, and a totally flat structure will save it. Now I don’t think you are saying that, but I know many who do and frankly I think that is plainly naive. Of course, authority must be relationally, Spirit driven and compensation should be situationally appropriate.

But given all that I will say bi-vocational, multiple-pastorates should be the norm, while full-time pastors the exception (but only within co-pastoring), and full-time-senior-pastor-expert-in-all-things excluded.

(but don’t mind me too much b/c it is past lunch and I haven’t eaten yet and I’m feeling cranky).

JR – Yes, but you could (if you have some time) tell us who your mentors have been or how you think about the ministerial work you do…That might be even a more important contribution…

Geoff – Agreed. “Plainly naive” sums it up nicely, and I like cranky. Just ask Bill Kinnon. : )

on another note, how come i can’t get my cool mug by my comments but JR and Jason do? you all think i have an ugly mug?

Jason – Can’t wait to hear your thoughts on “the nature of our work as ministers.” I’m looking forward to hearing how you define the post-Christian pastor’s “job” and how vocational ministry options relate.

Your Three Questions

1. #1 – I commented on this in your last post. #2 – I agree with the sense that post-Christian 20-40 year olds are unimpressed with what professional clergy do for them. I doubt most of them could articlulate why. My guess – They have a (biblical) hunger for a city who’s builder and maker is God – a community with Kingdom DNA. In other words, the “guy up front” doesn’t have the goods. He’s either not living it himself or he’s been trained to be a distributer of religious goods and services, thus diminishing the role of the priesthood to passive consumerism. #3 – I think this next generation of church leadership needs to include a pathway to sustainable bi-vocational leadership in the season of preparation (18-25 years old). At 25 young leaders should be able to answer the question, “how will I provide for my family where God is sending me? The question must be answered before a full-time pastorate in a traditional church is the only option. God is creative and very, very big! He’ll help anyone answer this question who asks with a willing heart to do whatever our Father asks!

2. Three D’s that come to mind. A. Doug Sherman (previous pastor). Doug poured as much time into me over his first 15 years of ministry as anyone in our previous church. He loved me like Jesus and walked the talk. B. Donald Miller (author). Don communicates honesty poignantly. C. Doug Paul (discipler). I’ve known Doug 3 months. He’s over 10 years younger than I am! He’s submitted himself to a path of discipleship in his own life. He’s under authority, growing like crazy and I want to walk in the spiritual capital he walks in & have a simily spiritual trajectory.

3. I imitate Jesus and serve others by helping them do the same.

Maybe Gravatar thinks your mug is ugly…?

James – I think your remark about needing “a pathway to sustainable bi-vocational leadership” is huge. I’m still struggling with the question, “How will I provide for my family where God is sending me?” even after I thought I’d sufficiently answered it (twice!). I think this is particularly difficult in a time of liminality. I like the way you’ve identified your work. I sense something in there which is indivisibly relational. That’s huge.

Thanks for sharing!

Hanging in the air here is the unspoken assumption that the gathering is the central dynamic of the Church. If that is the case, and it certainly is in the modern Christendom church, then the pastor is the central and indispensable figure. This begs the question, “What is the Church’s primary function and its central dynamic?”

I will argue that the church scattered is immeasurably more important than the church gathered. If so, then it should cause us to re-evaluate other major assumptions. One of those, for example, is discipleship. If our central dynamic is outward-focused, then discipleship focuses (rightly) on the path we prepare for those on the way to Jesus. Our contemporary perspective is completely inward at those already safe inside the four walls.

If the Church is, by nature, centrifugal rather than centripetal, then mentors successfully living in a relational interface between Jesus and the unsaved become primary players. Full-time vocational clergy simply cannot do this.

Maybe one way to shake us from our pastor-centric view of ministry is to re-examine how the New Testament uses the word “church.” When Paul addresses “the church in Rome,” or anywhere else, he is speaking of all followers of Jesus in the geographical region regardless of their local house gathering affinity. When he speaks to the believers in Ephesus, therefore, about leaders God has given to the church, he is speaking of regional leadership.

Let’s define our terms and identify our assumptions. It might render certain professional categories a little less biblically legitimate than we currently think.

And speaking of naivete, as an earlier post mentioned, thinking that the pastor’s attitude toward his role and function is the key to missional success is simply not true. Winston Churchill once said, “We form our buildings, and then they form us.” The cultural baggage of evangelical church membership is so heavy, as soon as we enter the trappings of “normal” church life we invite all the expectations that nearly three centuries of American religion have to offer. This includes the assumptions of attractional, building-based ministry as both biblical and culturally effective; professional performance with the sermon as the central point of the Christian week; and passive observation in a weekly gathering as the average church member’s responsibility.

This is the real elephant in the room. Once we start naming these things, the issue of pastoral compensation pales in comparison. Several earlier posts speak freely about what post-christian or postmodern people look for, but most of what I read offer answers from the modern worldview. If this truly is a changing of epochs in church history, then let’s struggle with what the new expression might look like instead of trying to squeeze another couple of miles out of the old vehicle.

Bob – Thanks for your comments. Those are very important points indeed, however I think you’d find that everything you’ve said here IS the unspoken assumption on this blog (not the other way around), and especially among those involved in this particular discussion. Generally with these folks there’s an overwhelmingly “Newbiginian” prejudice toward what it means to be missional. So, perhaps that will you in defining the terms. Moreover, nobody here has suggested that the pastor’s attitude toward his role is the key to missional success (most people here would be suspicious of the word “success”), but given everything you’ve said I would think you might agree that it is an incredibly important piece – if for no other reason than the simple fact that leaders need to eat too. Besides, leadership structures, including compensation, are part of the building that “shapes us.” (Incidentally, you’ll find my post The Usonian Church to be essentially an extended reflection on how our structures form us). I guess what I’m saying is, feel free to look around : )

as one who brought up the naivette, and because we got to hang out a bit at Ft. Wayne at the Missional Commons.

But to the point, I generally agree with everything you said, except I don’t believe the church scattered is immeasurably more important the church scattered. If you have some really watered-down, typically evangelical, individualist, consumer version of church “gathered” then sure that is bad. but come on, we can and should do better than that. The church gathered is where Christ promises to meet us in word and sacrament to make us into his people SO THAT we can discern Him in the world while scattered.

The problem is most just gather once a week which historically is not what had been practiced. in fact, we should always in various ways be moving from scattered to gathered and back and back again.

Lastly, what is the church scattered anyway? a bible study, soup kitchen, private prayers but using the same prayers as the entire community, visiting the sick, ministering to the lost. could most of those be called the church gathered b/c none of those things should be done alone anyway?

Just joining this discussion – I belonged to a church for over a decade where the staff were full-time supported (similar to Campus Crusade staff) with a plurality of pastors. Now I am a full-time seminary student and member at Life on the Vine. In my old church, seminary had less value and apprenticeship of shepherds with a focus on character and ministry skills had greater value. Now that I have been to seminary, I find that I value the theological education as an important component to the apprenticeship model. I feel that I am far better equipped to think/teach/preach the Bible than I was before.

Jason, I appreciate the way you have set up the tension. Seminary education often takes people out of their home congregation apprentice contexts and leaves graduates with debt and a professional mentality and gears them for placement (read: “parachuting”) in a new church and denominational structure. How strange to be hired by a church where the pastor has no shared history or experience with the congregation!

One comment about professionalism. I think I agree that leading from a place of title, position, or as the expert can lead to a passive community. However, I think the church needs people who have expert knowledge. They are important to the health of a community. Isn’t this leading from gifting? I wonder if our anti-professional tendency can swing us toward discounting people’s gifting for the sake of making sure everyone is on level ground.

I’m not arguing for the way things are in Evangelical churches but I wonder if our reaction might make us unbalanced in the other direction?

Ty – Wonderful comments. I especially appreciate your willingness to express a need for teachers with a deeper than average knowledge and you comment near the end is splendid: “I wonder if our anti-professional tendency can swing us toward discounting people’s gifting for the sake of making sure everyone is on level ground.” I know I’ve been guilty of that, and I’m planning to address it by offering a particular way of characterizing our work. You’re anticipating much of what I’m hoping to stir up. Thanks!

[...] (This is the second in a six-part series exploring the dynamics of clergy pay in missional churches. See previous installments: Prelude | Part 1) [...]

Jason,

I’m a new reader. JR Rozko’s been “sharing” these posts in Google Reader and they caught my attention, so I thought I’d come over and check them out for myself. I like the discussion so far.

I’m an engineer by trade, a pastor’s kid, and a member of The Salvation Army. My comments are not coming from the position of someone in a Missional community (although I do have some exposure) or from a full-time traditional pastor (although a handful of relatives and many of my best friends are).

As to your first point, my experience hasn’t been that the act of paying a full time pastor contributes much to the church having a more passive attitude. I’ve found that,in the churches I’ve been a part of, the same people that expect to receive will expect it just as much from an unpaid active member of the congregation (like, for example, me or my wife) as from a paid staff person.

I think cause and effect may be backwards here. Rather than “paid pastorate creates passive member of the congregation”, the real answer might be that “people who want to be passive are attracted to congregations where someone is paid to do things for them”.

Just a thought.

Thanks for hosting this discussion!

Josh – Glad to have you here!

I’m really grateful to have your perspective as a Salvation Army member. There was somone here recently from a Mennonite tradition, and those are certainly less common perspectives that make this discussion healthier. I love what you wrote here:

“people who want to be passive are attracted to congregations where someone is paid to do things for them.”

I think that’s an excellent point, and I would agree that dynamic occurs. I don’t mean to represent passivity as a simple effect caused caused by paid clergy. Rather, I’m driving at the idea that our client/patron tendencies are a symptom of being birthed in a thoroughly market-based society. I’m hoping to suggest an alternative way of seeing clergy that allows for remuneration while removing them from the paradigm of the market as sheer producers of consumable goods.