You’ll have noticed that I haven’t been blogging much this week. It’s time, you see.
It has been Freshers’ Week at the University, and I’ve tried to put a bit of extra time in there. A dear old lady died at the weekend. I had another funeral to do yesterday, a training session to lead at my friend Kim’s church (and no, I won’t be sending them a bill for my professional services) and I’ve had three separate meetings at the school where I’m a governor. I’m a colleague short on the Circuit staff because the minister we were expecting in August from overseas has not yet been able to get here leading to a variety of extra issues which need to be sorted out, and a particularly tricky form from the Connexion for me to fill in which required, among other things, some lengthy conversations with my boss. (Not *that* boss. The one in Cardiff.) I’ve used the time in between all these things reminding the wife and kiddies what I look like, and I’m sorry to say that blogging hasn’t been at the top of my list.
The week at the University has been a modest success, I think. We’ve been glad to welcome some new folk, and welcome back some others. The ‘Opening of Session’ service was earlier this evening, and my colleague Fr Neil preached a really excellent short sermon. The size of the congregation raised some issues for me about Christian unity on campus, but that’s sensitive stuff and definitely not ‘blog fodder’.
What is a minister? over at Dave Warnock’s blog managed to catch my eye. The post and subsequent conversation raised some really important issues. One of the things that occasionally raises its head in British Methodism is the distinction between ministers, ordained by the church to word and sacrament, and the “Local Preachers”, lay folk who have been trained and authorized to preach in our churches.
Sometimes one hears Local Preachers declare that whereas ministers have ‘all week’ to prepare for worship, they have to fit their preparation around a working week. It’s as if they really believe the old canard about ministry being a ‘one day a week job’. What they forget is that all ministers (by which I mean, technically speaking, ‘presbyters’ — but let’s not split hairs) have been Local Preachers before they were able to begin their training for ministry. Back in the days when I had what my mother calls a proper job, I would make myself available to the Superintendent to be planned to preach, taking about 6 or 7 services a quarter. Not a huge number, but given that I was also the church treasurer for quite a large church, enough. I had a job I enjoyed, but which often required me to meet with clients ‘out of hours’ and with limited opportunities for those hours to be made up. What I can say, hand on heart, is that I had more time for preparation back then than I have now, and I felt far freer not to trouble myself too much about getting something new ready for every service. (I earned more back then too, but that’s a side issue) Believe it or not, ministers do not spend the time between Sundays punctuating naps with coffee breaks and extended sessions with daytime television. Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not complaining. Ministry is a tremendous privilege and has many joys. But it also has significant costs, and those are not always borne by the minister herself.
Which raises the issue of money. Ministers receive a modest stipend and somewhere to live from the church. Local Preachers (mostly) receive no payment other than travel expenses, and many decline even that. This is used on occasion to claim that, in contrast to ministers, Local Preachers are “volunteers”. But this is nonsense! As a letter to the Methodist Recorder pointed out a while ago, the only basis on which any Methodist preacher can take to the pulpit is as a result of a call from God, a call which the church tests in a variety of ways. Preachers, whatever their financial and employment arrangements might be, can only preach because they have been compelled. It’s a big claim, and it will seem preposterous to some, but that’s the Methodist position. We don’t preach because we want to, but because we have to. The notion of a division between the noble volunteers on the hand and the paid hacks on the other would be laughable if it were not so divisive of the fellowship of the Local Preachers’ Meeting, to which all Methodist preachers belong.
On a entirely different and completely unrelated subject, I couldn’t resist this picture from today’s Guardian. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, and I’m not claiming that the shape of this US Navy building in California has any significance, but you have to wonder how this could possibly have been allowed. Didn’t architects draw plan views in the 70’s? I was glad to learn that part of the planned remodelling of the building might include solar panels. Is this further evidence that George Bush might actually be ‘getting’ climate change at last?
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
ee 09.28.07 at 10:19 am
Building designed by KKK Associates, presumably. Blimey.
Methodist Preacher 09.28.07 at 10:49 am
Richard, as I took part in the discussion of “what is a Minister”, let me say that I have never said or believed that Ministry was a “one day a week Job”.
Some of the most wonderful people I know have worked eight days a week in Ministry. There was one Minister who took the trouble to open his house each evening to a bunch of rowdy teenagers, some with fathers in prison, all secondary modern kids, some of us making money from working in the local legal and illegal gambling industry, many from broken homes.
They were the sort of kids everyone else treated as rubbish. I was one of those kids and found the Lord through that work. It was the pivotal moment that took me from real despair (Dad in prison, family split up, little money, complete lack of self worth) into one where I had a real assurance that if my Creator loved me so much that He sent his son to get me, then I must have some value.
From that moment on I wanted to tell people the good news. I did consider Ministry, but felt God also wanted His people in other places - on the factory floor, in the trade unions, political parties etc.
What interested me about the discussion was that two Ministers were reluctant to grasp the word “professional”. I think back to John’s invitation to invite us into his Rectory. It all seemed very informal, but I now see just how professional - in the sense of high standards, understanding the people he sort to serve, his training etc - he really was. This was a professional who was on our side, very unusual.
It is possible to be informal, open, loving, caring - and professional. One area in which i have seen it is those lawyers who work pro bono on difficult miscarriages of justice. Because they were working for free or on expenses it doesn’t make them less professional.
It was interesting that two Minsiterial bloggers objected to being described as “professional”, at least initially. When I meet a profesional - a doctor, lawyer or acountant - I want to have confidence they they are profesional. If I get an indication they are not, I’m off to someone who is. Yet we have this fantasy that Minister don’t have to be professional - in which case why bother training them and having probationary years?
The difference between a Minister and a Local Preacher is - I hope - that the Minister is able to spend more time exploring ideas and putting together sermons that reflect their much more detailed knowledge of scripture and theology. It comes as no surprise that the best Ministers put aside an entire Thursday to prepare their sermon(s) for Sundays. If you are in a congregation you can tell.
I also have expectations that a Minister has had some training in leading Bible studies and helping people come to Jesus (something in which I am neither gifted nor trained). And as for bereavement counselling I know that I am completely out of my depth and really struggle when asked to speak at funerals or comfort relatives.
Sadly I supect that two many Minsiters find themselves doing little more than running a community centre with a cross on top.
They are busy, with not enough time in the day, but are they really spending their time wisely? That’s one of the reasons why I ask whether Churches should compete with the local hotel to run wedding ceremonies.
For example example don’t need Minsiters who are control freaks handling the detail of property matters - these should be left to the laity.
Before a Minister interjects and says: but there’s no one in the laity with the time and commitment, perhaps it is because many Minsiters have not been focussed on the spiritual development and enablement of the laity. We find our congregations facing real problems of age and gender balance and the confidence to just get on and do things.
Growing open churches will not find difficulty recruiting people to handle many tasks currently left to the Minister. Some of the more skillful Ministers use small tasks in the church to build people up. One I know even used it as a way of reaching the playgroup’s husbands by getting them to help on a Saturday “paint and praise” day followed by a men’s lunch. But he was, as I say, a professional, who had the skills to engage and enable
However called a Local Preacher feels, we know that they have not got the time or training to prepare services to the standard to that of a Minister. Nor do they have the authority to initate pastoral and evangelistic work. I sometimes think that it would be better to substitute the Local preacher circuit system with one of designated unpaid pastors to support the Minister in just one of two churches. The current system of four Ministers covering 15 churches support by a dozen local preachers who pop up all over the place makes it dificult to work consistently.
Sorry, bit long for me. Got a week off so much more time. Next week I will be preparing sermons and blogging from the luxury of the Gants Hill Travelodge.
By the way Richard, you haven’t updated us on the “thought police” who took your Rowan Williams posters down. Did you catch the culprits?
PamBG 09.28.07 at 11:55 am
As I said, I objected to the idea of a minister as a professional whose time is so valuable that s/he should not spend it with anyone who doesn’t look like they are likely to convert and become a church member.
You didn’t define how you saw the word ‘professional’ and you linked it with ‘Let’s not do weddings for non-church members because they are taking up the minister’s time.’
Again, I repeat my assertion that if you tell the village you aren’t prepared to marry their children, I think you’re saying that the church isn’t interested in the bride and groom unless they prepared to become members. In other words, that the church and the minister are not prepared to be good citizens of the village; all we want is for people to join our exclusive club. Again, perhaps this hard-arsed attitude flies in inner city Birmingham. It doesn’t fly in country villages in Worcestershire or Shropshire.
If you’re suggesting that I resist the word ‘professional’ because I don’t care to do a good job, because I’m lazy and I’m not committed, then you are wrong. This doesn’t even deserve a justification and so I will not offer one. The people who know me know I work hard and that I always strive to give everyone - even if they are not believers - quality time, attention, and service.
I’ve said in the past that I respect Christians in politics and my first gut instinct was to respect you, probably because I tend to agree with all or most of your views. But I’m losing respect for a person who apparently thinks that it’s OK to crticise individuals he’s never met for things he imagines they might not be doing. Lighten up!
Kim 09.28.07 at 12:16 pm
I am sympathetic to what David (Methodist Preacher) says about “professionalism”, but, of course, it all depends what you mean by the term. In fact, the original professional was precisely the cleric, literally the one who publicly pro-fessed the faith, and who, in pre-Reformation times, had not only sacral but also medical and legal functions. During the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries the term became secularised, and doctors and lawyers joined priests as society’s “professionals”, and the list has continued to expand, often on a economic basis.
The OED defines “profession” as “a paid occupation, especially one involving training and a formal qualification”, and (I would add) some sort of institutional standards and at least an implicit code of practice. Professionals also (I think) bear an ethos with symbolic resonance, such that it can be difficult to separate the person from the work, as well as to tell when they are on or off duty. It seems to me that ministers fit this bill and should therefore have no problem with the self-designation “professional”.
On the other hand - a big hand - Alastair Campbell, in Paid to Care? The Limits of Professionalism in Pastoral Care (1985) warns of the “professional captivity of pastoral care”, the dangers, for example, of middle class dominance, of an inherent conservatism that resists change, of standing on privilege and exploiting positions of power, of uncritically adopting the styles, methods, jargon (e.g. replacing catechist/teacher with “facilitator”), etc. of secular professionals (like counsellors and psychotherapists) - all of which, in fact, are the perils of failing to subject ministry to continual theological critique and construction.
As for “What is a minister?”, you will find my extended answer in “Ten Propositions on Being a Minister” at Ben Myers’ blog faith-theology.blogspot.com (on the the sidebar under “Popular Posts” you’ll find it among my “Propositions”).
O
Ian 09.28.07 at 1:25 pm
Kim,
I heartened by your post. You make a point about’professional’ that I tried to make elsewhere. I’ve read your ten propositions - perhaps they should have a wider circulation. I can think of a few ministers - and stewards etc - that would benefit from studying them.
Richard,
Experiences do shape our thinking and I have come across the mind-set that believes ministers only do one day a week. Usually, it is from those outside the church. My concern, these days, is that ministers have too many churches to run; too many responsibilities that they should not bee doing - see Kim’s propositions - and some have an almost suicidal desire to create a gap between themselves and the congregations. There plenty in the congregations happy to let them do this. This ‘priestly’ tendency does not belong in a priesthood of all believers.
My personal grievance (see the correspondence on 42) is that the Church is not using all the talents and training people have. The Methodist Church, in its training requirements, is guilty of ageism, as I recently discovered.
We need to look at creative ways of opening ministry up. I do not think that the recognition of ordination should be limited to the pastorate. Evangelists and Bible Teachers are not always Pastors - or vice versa. In Methodism, the role and function of deacons could be expanded. Similarly, as Local Preachers are ‘recognised’ perhaps other roles need to be ‘recognised’. Just some off-the cuff thoughts.
Methodist Preacher 09.28.07 at 2:09 pm
Pam you say:
If you’re suggesting that I resist the word ‘professional’ because I don’t care to do a good job, because I’m lazy and I’m not committed, then you are wrong. This doesn’t even deserve a justification and so I will not offer one. The people who know me know I work hard and that I always strive to give everyone.
and then conclude:
I’m losing respect for a person who apparently thinks that it’s OK to crticise individuals he’s never met for things he imagines they might not be doing.
The operative word is “If”.
Pam, I have never met you in my life, have never spoken to anyone about your Ministry and have absolutely no basis upon which to make judgments about your commitment or propensity for hard work. Nor have I made a comment to that effect about you personally, anywhere on this post or elsewhere! I’m astounded…and a bit disappointed. Ah well.
Kim, Thanks for putting this discusion in context.
I think one of the special problems that Ministers face as distinct from many other professions (and Pam puts her finger on this point about the traditional relationship between the Church and the village) is that Ministers are expected to have a social relationship with those they serve, whereas Doctors, Lawyers and Accountants have far more choice and often work and live in entirely different communities.
I think this is changing. Two of our four Ministers live “off circuit” and this will become far more common. Once again meaning that we have to redefine the relationship as the Minsiter ceases to be the good hearted civic minded neighbour you bump into in the village shop or outside the school gates, but someone who visits the Church by prior arrangement, and makes appointments to see people before doing a round trip of several miles. I think this will hasten the day of “codes of practice” and transparent systems for handling complaints as in many of the “newer” professions.
This process will be accelerated by fewer Minsiters and fewer churches. It would be interesting to hear from Ministers in urban areas where the next door neighbours may not even speak English, are almost certainly not Methodist and a Minister has a catchment area of up to a hundred thousand people, with no obvious community focal point. That’s an entirely different relationship between the Minister, the Church and the community.
In that relationship the Minister presiding at weddings, funerals is almost certainly a complete stranger to those in attendance.
I also think the widespread advent of women into Ministry will have a profound effect. My “professions” tended to be very masculine (and consequently often rough) in the 70s and 80s when I started. I note that it was often women in the profesional bodies who wanted clarity about professional conduct. I think it provides much need professional protection.
Of course whatever happens to the professional status of the clergy, we need to have clarity about the relationship with the church. There will be two possibilities - Methodist congregations will be gathered into several large Churches accessible by those with cars or where possible, good quality public transport. Alternatievly, Smaller churches will have to become more self sufficient, with the laity enabled, with the MInisters only involved in those issues and occasions when and where their professional expertise is critical.
This has huge implications for how we train our laity and how Ministers set thier priorities.
PS I find it very difficult to type in these comment boxes so please excuse the literals.
Jen 09.29.07 at 12:45 pm
Sorry I missed freshers week. Hows the new SCM group going? Looking forward to seeing you at the gathering in Nov.
PamBG 09.29.07 at 9:31 pm
Ministers are expected to have a social relationship with those they serve, whereas Doctors, Lawyers and Accountants have far more choice and often work and live in entirely different communities.
What on earth do you understand by ‘Love your neighbour?
You want me to preach ‘Jesus says in the great commandment love God and love your neighbour as yourself’
And then you want me to turn around and say to Mrs. Jones, ‘Sorry, my time is far too valuable to conduct your husband’s funeral and your daughter’s wedding. It might be a different thing if you were a member of the church, but sorry, you’re just not productive from my point of view?’
Sorry, David, I’m sticking to what I believe are the consequences of the Gospel. Whether or not you agree with it.
Maybe the problem with the Church is that we don’t see other people as beloved children of God but only in three categories: members, potential members and not members. I think all three categories are ‘worth’ my time and effort.
Jonathan Marlowe 09.30.07 at 11:06 pm
Hello PamBG. I am curious. This is an honest question: would you also do a baptism for a child born in your community, even if the family has no relation to the church? The reason I ask is that (at least in the United Methodist Church), the liturgy in the service of Christian marriage makes clear that the marriage service takes place in the context of the wider baptismal covenant.
PamBG 09.30.07 at 11:40 pm
Jonathan, I have actually done a baptism for a person in the wider community, so the answer is ‘yes’. I hope the following explanation makes sense to you; it does to me.
I believe that prevenient grace means that ’salvation’ is ‘the default position’ (in the light of Christ’s atoning work) and that in order to be damned, we have to turn our back on God; this is not to imply that turning one’s back on God is an infrequent occurance nor does it imply that I deny Original Sin.
Much of evangelical theology seems to assume that damnation is the default position and that salvation is something that we earn by ‘accepting Christ’. If I believed that, then I don’t think I could baptise any baby even if s/he were the child of baptised and passionate believers.
I’m not clear about what you mean by your comment about the marriage service taking place in the context of the wider baptismal covenant and what that has to do with baptism? I could see that, in such a context, being married in a church might be a problem if one was not baptised. There is no explict reference to the bride and groom having been baptised in our marriage service.
Jonathan Marlowe 10.01.07 at 2:39 am
I do not assume damnation is the default position, but I do not understand how a parent can answer all the baptismal questions honestly if they have no relation with any church. And the marriage service derives its intelligibility from the baptism. Please do not assume this means I have no compassion for those outside the church.
PamBG 10.01.07 at 10:04 am
but I do not understand how a parent can answer all the baptismal questions honestly if they have no relation with any church.
I talk to the parents about the difference between a thanksgiving service for their baby and baptism and I offer them the choice. I am aware that, in this culture at least, many people will choose baptism because they see it as the ‘proper’ way ‘to do’ the baby.
Our baptismal service baptises the baby first before anyone makes any promises, emphasising the sacramental nature of baptism. I emphasise at the meeting - and in my sermon - that baptism is about being welcomed into the Body of Christ. I tell the parents that they are promising to teach their child about the Christian faith and that this really can’t be done without community.
I’m wondering here if our differences may actually boil down to what the minister’s responsibility is. As I deduce what you’re suggesting (I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), that it’s my job as the minister to police the parents and make sure that they keep their promises.
Whereas I think that my responsibility is to emphasise to them that they are making solemn promises that they are expected to keep; I’m content that I did that, I think the child was ‘really’ baptised because I think baptism is a sacrament, and I think it’s their responsibility to keep those promises.
And the marriage service derives its intelligibility from the baptism.
Or perhaps they both derive their intellibility from each other? ISTM that with unchurched people, using ‘marriage’ as an image in a baptism service would be more effective than using ‘baptism’ as an image in a marriage service. In any event, there is absolutely no fear in my situation that any non-church member is going to be ask me to marry them. More and more weddings here are secular and people don’t get married in small, unattractive chapels. So much for all the worries that weddings take up my time; I’ll probably get through this appointment with no weddings whatsoever.