With the financial situation in many dioceses now becoming increasingly serious, a growing number of churches, even net-giving ones, are being faced with a choice: accept an unpaid vicar or get nobody.
But PCCs have a responsibility to ask questions about the biblical and theological knowledge of self-supporting ministers (SSMs) because the ministry of the Word of God is essential to the final salvation of them and the members of their church. That is clear from the Apostle Paul's exhortation to Timothy, who was in pastoral charge of the church at Ephesus: 'Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold fast to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers' (1 Timothy 4v16 - RSV).
So here are three suggested questions for an SSM at interview:
1) Can you recite the Ten Commandments in the correct order?
2). Can you name the epistles of Paul in their correct order in the New Testament?
3). Can you name the topics covered by seven of the Church of England's 39 Articles of Religion?
Unsatisfactory answers to the first two questions reveal that the candidate has not spent sufficient time in the Old and the New Testaments; unsatisfactory answers to the third reveal that he or she has not bothered to read the 39 Articles.
Furthermore, the inability to answer question 1). reveals not only scant attention to the Scriptures but also unfamiliarity with the Book of Common Prayer, for the Ten Commandments are set out at the beginning of the Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion.
Probing those who are willing to pastor local churches unpaid may seem harsh. But the ministry of the Word is so important that no one, whether they are paid or not, should be bringing culpable ignorance to the pulpit.
Of course, it is quite possible that stipendiary ministers may not be able to give satisfactory answers to the above questions. In which case that would be revealing of the inadequacy of the growing number of part-time regional courses both paid and unpaid clergy are being trained on.
Finally, it needs to be said that any minister who takes pleasure in exposing the ignorance of other ministers is not fit to be a pastor of Christ's flock - on the ground that pride is a disqualification (see 1 Timothy 3v6-7). It should be a source of profound grief to any Christian that Jesus' people are being pastored by people who are not up to the sacred calling of ministering the saving Word.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your post raises all sorts of issues about ministry in the church.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, it could be considered that the finanacial restraints and consequent consideration of an 'unpaid vicar' or 'get nobody' could be a new and exciting opportunity for the churches concerned.
Secondly, why should it be assumed that the installation of an SSM is an answer to that problem? In any event, the ability to pass the three very basic questions/tests suggested cannot guarentee for a moment that the SSM qualifies as a spiritual leader/teacher in the congregation.
The prospect for such a church surely is an opportune moment to re-consider some pressing NT teaching about the nature of ministry that should take place when a congregatioon gathers - a task filled with all sorts of potential spiritual gains.
As Howard Snyder once observed: " The New Testament assumes certain preconditions, and where these are lacking, New Testament results will not follow. Paul's teaching about the gifts of the Spirit assume then a New Testament view of the church".
Would it not be a time for such congregations to re-discover the meaning and application of Paul's letter in 1 Corinthians 12-14, as to the importance and functioning of the WHOLE body of Christ to minister to one another? Far from that being exceptional, in Paul's thinking that would be normal practice - see 1 Cor.14:26, 31.
Thus there could be every expectation that spiritual gifts and mutual ministry to one another in the congregation could then emerge, exercised perhaps for the first time tentatively but progressively, and with potential for real spiritual blessing for all concerned.
Thus the primary objective of meeting together at all, as set out in this chapter, namely that of mutual edification, would begin to take place.
When the money stops... the thinking starts!
ReplyDeleteMy academic research (for a PhD) has been on faith based organisations. Those heavily reliant on government money (and alas, many well known Christian faith based orgs receive 50-90% of their income from the taxpayer, rather than donation) - tend to be mirrors of what the state or other voluntary organisations provide. Some are good, some not so good, but there is no evidence to say just because an organisation claims it is faith-based, it is any better (or worse) than a similar, non-faith based voluntary/not-for-profit organisation.
However I also looked at some church/faith community faith-based social welfare projects that refused government money and did their own thing – and these (of the ones I researched) were dynamic, prophetic, sacrificial and ‘Evangelical’ in the true sense of the word – acting as salt and light in their communities. Tho’ of these ‘independent’ faith based orgs, there was very good leadership – which I think made a real difference.
Our present culture of large voluntary organisations (including faith based orgs) becoming heavily reliant on the taxpayer to meet the bills has, to my mind, made these organisations ‘flabby’, and much of a muchness. I think it is fair to say something similar has happened within some (tho’ not all) churches (tho’ of course it is the diocese and the Church Commissioners, who meet the bills in this case). I am convinced, the disestablishment of the CofE is the way forward, if the Anglican Church is to survive in any viable manner in the future. When the money stops... the thinking starts!
P.
Peter, you are right in saying "the disestablishment of the CofE is the way forward, if the Anglican Church is to survive in any viable manner in the future". But that does not go far enough. The individual churches need to have more autonomy, particularly in financial matters. This would be liberating for those who belong to them. What would you prefer - allowing a distant, managerially incompetent, compromising bishop spend your money, or your own PCC?
DeleteIn my view, it will be finances that finish off the CofE as we know it. Like the captain of the Italian cruise ship, the bishops will continue to act as if there is nothing much wrong until shortly before they hit the rocks.
Personally, I decided that I didn't want to have to swim for shore in a few years time, and left the CofE last year to join a thriving independent church.
Best boat to fish from? Not with failed captains like these it isn't.
David
"it needs to be said that any minister who takes pleasure in exposing the ignorance of other ministers is not fit to be a pastor of Christ's flock"
ReplyDeleteSure, but who is doing that?
Dan
Unfortunately pride leads to competitiveness in ministry and the desire to make other ministers look stupid can manifest itself in our fallen human natures as a way of puffing ourselves up. It's very destructive.
ReplyDeleteJulian, you refer to "competetiveness in ministry", but you fail to define what this is!
ReplyDeleteIs this code language for disapproval of women in ministry, or dissatisfaction with proposed SSM's, or something else?
As for "competitiveness", there is a sense in which this is bilically sound and to be desired - from both testaments.
Moses complained that there were not enough prophets in Israel - "Would to God that ALL the Lord's people were prophets" (Num.11:29)
Likewise in the NT Paul desired that ALL within the early churches, and in the Corinthian churches to whom he wrote, would potentially be engaged in mutually edifying ministry (1 Cor.14:3,5b,24,39).
As long as such mutual ministries are exercised spiritually and 'decently and in order'(14:40,) then Paul encouraged such 'competitiveness'.
What prevents the exercise of such ministry is the entrenched 'two-caste' system in our church life. As it is accurately described:
"In this two-caste system there is a clergy-caste which is trained, called, paid, and expected to do the ministering. And there is the laity-caste which normally functions as the audience which appreciatively pays for the performance of the clergy ...... no one expects much of the lower, or laity caste, except attendance and tithe, and everyone expects too much of the upper or clergy caste (including the clergy themselves!).
The greatest problem in the whole business is the fact that the Bible's view of ministry totally contradicts this system"
It is this system, then, which needs to change if the church is to survive, and the means of doing so is a return to the simplicity of the ministerial pattern Paul sets out. Anything less will not suffice to effect urgently needed reformation.
Graham, any chance of a source for your quote?
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure where you're heading with this. Are you advocating the abolition of paid full-time clergy? This despite 1 Cor. 9:7,14 and 1 Tim. 5:17. Some clarification would be useful.
Dan
Hallo Anon. First you ask for the source of my quotation (I assume you refer to the Howard Snyder quote above)? If so, it is taken from his excellent book 'Liberating The Church', now long out of print. However it is probably still available somewhere via Amazon.
ReplyDeleteThe comment comes in his chapter on the 'Ministry of all believers' - a concept which as you may have gathered from my posts, I subscribe to very strongly. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is the lack of this simple NT right and privilege that churches are rendered spiritually weak and ineffective through dependence on one leader - a professional clergyman.
Do I advocate the abolition of full time paid clergy. In a word, yes. That of course is by the standards of the institutional churches hugely radical, disruptive, and wholly unacceptable. That I understand - but then the NT is itself very radical, and yet simple in its approach to ministry.
I take your points about Paul's comments in the verses you quote, but would not apply these to the modern, often highly paid, professional modern clergy class, many of which regard a hierarchical clergy class as "normal". The NT does not do so.
Re 1 Cor 9. I do not believe this passage can be used to justify the concept today of 'support for the clergy'. I think Paul's argument in this passage, (as also in 2 Cor. 8 and following) must be seen in the context of his personal, even unique, circumstances as an itinerant Apostle, who occasionally could appeal for material support from the churches which he founded and to whom he ministered, but would not insist upon as a "right".
He had already argued that he did not wish to burden church fellowships with such matters, and that normally he was self supporting in his own trade (mainly as a tent maker). On principle then, as an example to his converts, and to avoid charges of mercenary motives, Paul and the Apostles 'worked with their own hands' and taught the principle widely.
What about the 'honour', or even 'double honour' and position of elders mentioned in 1 Timothy passage?
Firstly they were not 'career clergy' with a contractual arrangment for a stipend! On the contrary Paul encouraged elders to be self supporting too - Acts 20:32-35; 1 Pet.5:2-3. Many of these were also ininerant, but were worthy of "honour" for their ministry. 'Honour' (Gk = 'time')does not imply a 'regular salary', but simply a high regard, respect, or value for their spirtual worth.
In the context of the rich tradition of hospitality in that culture, this no doubt included 'B & B' very frequently, and freewill offerings also in the spirit of Lydia's extended hospitality to Paul & Silas (Acts 16:14,15)
Re the modern 'clergy problem, I cannot recommend too highly a small work just published by Dr Jon Zens (theologically conservative) which treats of these issues more fully -
' The Pastor.....Moving from Clergy-centered Church to Christ-centered ekklesia.' (Only about £6 from Amazon, or from me as I distribute it in the UK.) grahamwood32@yahoo.co.uk
Thank you Graham for your clarifications. Fortunately Snyder's book is available at Amazon, currently at 22p! - in which case I'll ask for it for my birthday from family ;)
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt that in large measure a clergy/laity divide causes problems as you describe, but I do doubt that this is the biggest factor in them. After all, it's not hard to locate times and places in church history where if anything pastors as a whole were held in greater esteem than typically now in the UK, yet the church was stronger than today. More significant, I'd suggest, would be the lack of confidence in Christianity itself on the part of churchgoers in general, with secularisation, the Darwinian challenge and much more.
I don't quite get what you mean by claiming that modern clergy are "often highly paid". Possibly in the US, but here in the UK?
Re. 1 Cor. 9, Paul does indeed state that he had the right to support (vv. 12, 15). Indeed the remarkable thing here is that this whole chapter appears to have been prompted by a challenge to the genuineness of his apostleship by people who thought that if he and Barnabas were true apostles they'd surely be able to "forbear working" (v. 6)! In other words, they realised that that was the norm for apostles, and so Paul hastens to explain that the same is true for himself and Barnabas, regardless of appearances to the contrary.
The "tentmaker" factor in Paul's case is widely misunderstood. Acts 18:3 says plainly that "And **because he was of the same craft**, he [Paul] abode with them [Aquila and Priscilla], and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers." In other words, he did it so they could spend extended time together to get to know each other and confer about spiritual things; not because he needed to do it for a living, still less as an example of thrift and generosity to the soon-to-be Corinthian church. Nothing here or anywhere else suggests that literal tentmaking was a regular and constant activity of the apostle.
Re. 1 Tim. 5:17, while "timee" may not mean a salary in the modern sense, it definitely often has a monetary meaning, being frequently translated "price" as you will know. NB after posting I realised I should really have referred to verse 18 too, because by quoting Luke 10:7 it nails down the fact that the word does indeed include the monetary sense here.
I was interested to read the other passages you referenced. All 1 Peter 5 prohibits is the quest for "filthy lucre", which I don't think is the same as refusing any remuneration whatsoever (cf. Luke 10:7 again - the Bible doesn't contradict itself). And I think it can be shown that you infer too much from Acts 20. For example, in verse 34 Paul says, "Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me." But we know that his companions numbered AT LEAST the seven men named in v. 4, plus Luke - and surely we can't imagine that Paul actually made enough from selling tents to support at least nine adults! Rather, he just means that when he did make money on the side he shared it round; his actual livelihood was from donations by various churches. And while he did indeed sometimes forbear asking churches for funds (Corinth, Thessalonica), so that he could set a good example by his secular labour, at other times he didn't mind inviting their contributions (Philippi).
I'd be interested to know what Julian as a full-time paid clergyman thinks about all this ;)
Dan
Dan, Thanks for your further comments, and glad that you have located Snyder. Even better than 'Liberating the Church' are his 'Community of the King' and 'Wineskins'. But I'll let that pass.
ReplyDeleteI did not really mean to get bogged down in the minutia of 'clergy support', and the exchanges drifted into this and away from Julian's original point about "competitiveness in ministry."
Even today, under his new post "Middle of Road Ministry Training Means mediocrity' the issue of "ministry" in the church re-emerges, and that is the issue which interest me.
Thus (under that heading he states):
"Our churches require well-trained evangelical ministers - will the institutional Church of England be able to deliver them? "
My response to that is - because of the institutional structure of the C of E the supply of "well trained" evangelical ministers will never be practically possible.
And why a "top down" arrangement as described?
The real question is being avoided which is: how is it best to restore sound, spiritually rewarding ministry within our churches?
I suggest the answer is staring us in the face, namely to return to the simplicity of the NT pattern we find in 1 Corinthians 12-14; Romans 12, and Ephesians 4.
In such passages there is no assumption of a clergy/laity divide in terms of minsitry at all. Indeed these very terms are so institutional and entrenched as to be the cause of mental error for all who use them.
We know that 'laity' (from laos) means people. The word 'clergy' comes from Gk. 'kleros', which means "lot", or inheritance. The implication being that ALL of God's people are both "ministers', not just a few from the "ordained" class. And ALL are and His inheritance, without distinction.
In our modern churches nearly everything revolves around the place, status, and ministry of the 'vicar', pastor, or other leader figure.
But the NT has an entirely different perspective in that nearly all of Paul's letters were written to whole churches, not their elders, or leaders. (the latter have an important place but that is not directly under discussion here)
The corporate life of churches comes to expression through all that Paul describes in 1 Cor. 12-14 in terms of mutual ministries, and is never focussed upon that of one leader, much less in a "sermon".
Thus throughout the NT there are no less than 58 "one another" exhortations to encourage such mutual care, ministries, and pastoral wellbeing to minister by, and to, the 'laos'.