Major League Church
This is fresh in my mind...
I just learned in church history that up untill the tenth century it was nearly unheard of for the minister (bishop back then) to switch congregations. Once thy were at a local church they stayed. It was considered very immoral to leave the place God had put you.
I put this together with some of the things I hear about Eugene Peterson and wonder what our stance should be today. Should ministers ever leave a congregation for a bigger and better one, a more healthy one, or even one with more problems? Is there a sense in which ministers are trying to graduate to the "major leagues" of a mega church. Obviously there are the exceptions when churches or elderships go completely mad and destroy a church. What is there there to be said about faithfulness to a congregation? I truly do not know what our stance should be considering our American specialized ministry context. I realizeI asked a lot of things. Hope to hear your thoughts.
posted by Jay Greer @ 2:46 PM
51 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
I need to think about this a little more, but my "blink" response is to point towards people like your uncle Steve Moss. 25 years in one church and what do you get? How about consistency, authority, brotherhood, respect, and the priveledge to baptize your youth group student's kids 20 years after you baptized them. I like the thought and will let it roll around in my head this evening.
This is a question I struggled with a lot when I was pondering a move to Ozark. My church was smallish (110) but truly remarkable and Spirit-filled. I still miss them very much. Is it moral/ethical to move from a smaller church to a larger church? Is it moral/ethical to move at all (that is if you are sensitive to God's calling)? There is no single answer here. I am convinced that God has called me to ministry and not necessarily a certain church. Why is it that preachers think they are somehow terribly different from the average man on the street? I would never tell the factory worker in my church that he shouldn't take another position where he would have a better influence and be a better father because God had called him to that factory. I think perhaps that it comes down to attitude. Some guys are obsessed with the bigger church for all of the wrong reasons. These guys are inevitably disappointed in ministry over and over. Some guys stay where they are at for all the wrong reasons too. There are certain times in the life of your congregation when it would be unethical to leave (I stayed an extra year at my church because of their debt situation), but when it comes down to it I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe that God prepares his servants with something smallish in order to have a greater impact later on. I hope this makes sense. It is an important question to ask.
BTW just because priest in the tenth century stayed in ministry for a long period doesn't necessarily make it gospel truth. They were also stealing from their congregants by selling indulgences. Don't misunderstand, there is great worth in staying in one place long-term (I've seen it with my own dad), but this is not always possible, worthwhile or even necessary.
Rags-
I think you make a good point concerning motivation. What is the reason for leaving, or going, or coming? The problem I see with that question is that motivations are always mixed and one can blind oneself to true motivations by coming up with nice sounding motivations. You don't think that ministers are different than factory workers?
I often wish that I had a church to make these decisions. Not because I don't care, but because we are servants of the Church. Should she not be the one to decide where we go?
I was offered the YM position at Boulevard (a place I grew up in and served at for 1.5 years) before I took the job at CIY. In the end I felt that I would grow more and my gifts would be put to use at CIY. Whether or not that makes me selfish, I don't know... I can only speak from experience. Sure, from the outside it appeared that I was choosing the "big leagues" over a church of 800. Yet, I have to tell you that I truly loved working in the church and had reached a point in my education at Ozark my last semester where I knew I would miss local church work if I took the job. I was right and struggled with my decision the first few months at CIY. Yet, now more than a year later I am confident in my decision and enjoy going to the office everyday. This is a sliver of my own experience. And I think sometimes what it would be like if I left CIY, went to a congregation that still ran worship by powerpoint and whether I would miss not being in a different major city every few weekends. I don't know, but I do know that CIY is not (and should not act like) a church. And I do know that I often miss the elders in Muskogee, my high school guys small group, the staff, and so on. I also know that there have been plenty of random thoughts swirling in my head on this issue, here are a few:
1. Community (which we all claim is important) only comes with time. How can you create brotherhood when you change churches every 2 years?
2. Could it be that some of us are wired up in ways that lend us to work in churches of less that 250? And if that happens to be me, am I able to accept that?
3. I have worked closely with about 10 different mega churches from Atlanta to Northen Cal over the last year and some are not as impressive as they appear. Does size really matter?
4. As husbands, is not your responsibilty to your wife/family first? I'm not saying you love your wife more than God, but I am saying you love your wife more than your job. I think the lines get blurred a little in ministry. So if your wife is not happy with your ministry (even if it is the chance of a lifetime) should you reconsider?
5. We all want influence... that is not a bad thing. But how many 25-30 year old ministers are running around trying to be the next Louie Giglio? What's the point?
6. Are we even asking the right question?
Well, there are my thoughts. I hope they are helpful and perhaps further this discussion.
Those are all great observations. Tyler, you are certainly right that there are some important differences between my factory worker and my preacher. The shepherd factor of ministry certainly makes any change more gutwrenching. However, I was simply trying to make the point that was is true of the factory worker is also true of the minister. Sorry for the blatantly "unspiritual" language, but I believe that there is such a thing as an entry level position into the ministry. We are fooling ourselves if we think otherwise. And this is a biblical principle (see the parable of the talents). Again it comes down to motivation. If you accept that position at the "megachurch" are you doing it for the applause of men or are you doing it because perhaps you could have a greater kingdom impact? OCC is no megachurch, but that is what the decision came down to for me (even though in my darker moments I am still seduced by the applause of men).
epp also made an outstanding point - it depends on your personal makeup. I have a friend and an OCC grad who is serving faithfully and happily in a small country church in Illinois and has no intentions of moving anytime soon because that is how he has been "made up." I have seen other guys get disillusioned and leave the ministry because they were not "made up" for that setting.
BTW - I love philosophy as much as the next guy, but it's refreshing to actually discuss something that has to do with real world ministry.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thom, could it be that the early church's decision was a pragmatic one? In my opinion, this is a practical question and should be answered with a practical answer. Perhaps by someone who has more than 2 years of ministry experience (ruling out most of us).
Thom, very good point in that ministers are by nature attracted to the desirable positions - the bigger churches. I feel sorry for the small churches within the 150 mile radius who serve a test congregations for OCC students (not a slam on those of you in local ministry) and never have leadership roots planted. And for that problem I have no answer at the moment. Consistency must be a value taught in the Bible college classroom and seen in leadership.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
My goodness Thom. Way to steal my joy.
I want to avoid any unhelpful philosophizing here simply because this is not an ivory tower issue. As far as history is concerned, I'm not sure that we can really learn a lot from the distant history in this case (I could be wrong). So much has changed in the practices and nature of the clergy over the years (and across cultures) that I'm not sure we could come to any conclusions. Let me humbly pose some suggestions and perhaps you all could add or subtract from the list.
Unethical reasons to leave a church:
1. If the attraction to leave is money alone.
2. When you have recently led the church to take certain steps of faith (a new building comes to mind).
3. If the new position is simply easier.
4. If you want to become well-known or well-liked (in this case you may want to take a lesson from Nouwin).
Ethical reasons to leave a church:
1. If you or your family's souls are in danger.
2. If your church does not have the means for you to provide for your family (the idealist in me says this shouldn't be the case, but the realist in me knows it is).
3. If you are not matched for the community you are currently in, and a better match is found somewhere else.
4. This tends toward subjectivity, but we ought to leave room for the actions of the Spirit.
5. If you or perhaps the congregation have become too comfortable.
6. If the name of the church pursueing you begins with the word Southeast . . .
This comment has been removed by the author.
This conversation began with a good historical question, and I simply believe that a 10th century, European, Catholic practice on this issue isn't necessarily helpful. Let me illustrate. In the Philippines I have met ministers who are serving seven or eight different congregations simultaneously. They will usually preach at two or three of the churches/week. In the Philippines, you are regarded as a lazy or perhaps immoral preacher by some if you only have one congregation. While this example might give us pause for consideration, I'm not sure that anyone would advocate that this is the best approach to ministry (or would we?). The example Jay gives is certainly worth thinking about but there are numerous other factors to think about considering our own context and also considering that scripture just does not give us an answer to this question.
Also, I'm not totally clear on why you think the minister and his family shouldn't enter into the equation. Of course they enter into it. Even in the denominations, there is a great deal more freedom than you might imagine.
Thom,
Where do you base your opinion that ministers should not consider their family in making ministry decisions? With all due respect, until you have had your spouse look at you and say that she does/does not want to be here/there or that this church helps/hurts her spiritually it will take a good arguement to convince me of your point. I am commited to my wife above any job... perhaps something we should all weigh when choosing to serve a church with a ring on our left hand.
And yes, I realize that there are more appealing characteristics of a church than just the number of people in the pews... or chairs. I mean really, most megachurches have chairs now anyway.
I love you, Thom.
If I could interject on behalf of Thom, he wrote,
“I am not convinced that a minister has the right to allow what is best for him and his family to enter his considerations. These considerations may enter the mind of the church congregation and the church authorities (in our case, elderships), but I am suspicious of any account that puts these considerations into the hands of the minister himself.”
I don’t think that he is saying wives and children don’t matter, but that he is saying it perhaps ought not be the ministers decision of what is best for his wife and children. In this conversation many of us have assumed that the highest authority is the minister/preacher, Thom is inviting us to question whether or not that should be the case. Would it be better if the Church made decisions that ministers and their families followed. What is best for them would thus be determined by the Church not themselves. While this goes against everything in us that tells us we are individuals with rights to what we want, but Thom is saying perhaps the Church might know what is best? Thom correct me if I’m misreading you hear. It isn’t that Thom doesn’t care about what is best for Erica, his soon to be bride, but that what is best for her might not be her decision or even ours. Well, I certainly hear what you are saying Eric I wonder if we submitted ourselves to a Church assuming that it knew best might we not be so concerned with whether or not we were doing what God wants? Or that we are in the “right” place? Or that we could be happier somewhere else? Certainly we ought to be committed to our wives no one here (I think) would argue against that, Thom is asking if maybe we ought to be committed to our wives in a different way than America tells us to? Don’t hear condemnation in this, I don’t know what to think, but I’m enjoying what has been said so far.
I am presently struggling with this issue at Dederick. I have seriously considered staying a year after graduation before going to graduate school. I don't know what it would "do for me," but it might help the church?
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Celebacy anyone? I say that tongue-in-cheek of course, but it clearly would be easier to serve in the church as a single man.
Please understand that I do not consider myself a person who does things or acts on impulses because I have the "right" to. I shudder at that idea because I thought I lost all of my rights when I decided to follow Christ.
Please also understand that when I speak of providing for my wife I am not suggesting that we strive to make enough money to dress her in J.Crew and give her the keys to a new SUV. Believe me, if I wanted to provide for my wife in the way that we are taught to in America I would not be in ministry at all.
Neither do I believe that being happy is evidence that we are in the right place. Sure, the right ministry fit is fulfilling, but what about all this suffering through difficult times - is there no value in that? Of course, if we find a church that we can trust enough to allow the leadership to determine what is best for us we would be fools to leave to go to a larger congregation across town.
Now then, I truly thank everyone involved in this conversation as it is causing me to be both philosophical and practical.
Thom,
After reading back through these posts I realize that our views really don't differ. Yes, Christ takes priority. Yes, we surrender our desires for the sake of the body. Yes, we suffer through difficult circumstances in the name of Christ. Of course, a majority of the difficult circumstances in the American church that we suffer through are elders who won't allow drums on stage.
But do not assume that I have a western view of my calling to the ministry. A majority of us will be forced to play within the American rules. Heck, I don't even work in a church, so who am I to comment in the first place?!? But we clock in at 8.00am, we attend board meetings, and we argue budget cuts. Now, am I saying that we should accept this and all subscribe to the Wall St. Journal? Of couse not, but I will say that my call to the ministry stretches far beyond any office I fill or business card I hand out. And the Church I serve is broader than any building on 23rd and Jackson Ave. My call to serve Christ is who I am. It engulfs my daily actions, the way I interact with the girl at Starbucks, the tone in my voice when I speak to my wife, even the purchases I make. So change churches every two years? In no way during this discussion have I been screaming for my own rights.
My goal was not to make this such a debate on whether or not my bride is more important than Christ's bride. I am fortunate enough to not have to wrestle with this particular question in my own life. But if I hear one more story about a minister who's family is in ruins I will throw up! This is not a question of either or... this is a question of how both public and private thrive. And I think the two are tied closer than we think.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thom, I think you have correctly identified the problem - What is the Church? Is it an individual congregation with elders or is it the ecumenical body of Christ? As a minister I have accepted the call to serve the church - in whatever capacity or location that may involve. I also agree that myself and my family must be in submission the the Church. Where this whole discussion becomes problematic (and perhaps even dangerous) is when your conception of the Church involves a local body of believers.
BTW Thom, I'm not a hater. I love philosophy as much as the next guy. You are right in your assessment of the philosophical task. I just think so much philosophy falls short of that task and paralyzes us with nuance and obscurities. Someone once said that there is no idea too crazy that some philosopher somewhere did not already think of it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by the author.
OK, the fragmented thoughts on this topic are beginning to mesh together in my mind, and a serious thanks to the dialog... it has been both frustrating and fun. I will say that I might have taken for granted or even overlooked in the moment that my marriage depends on the church - we would not survive without it. Therefore, I realize that every decision I make in regards to my personal life plays a role in the overall community, which is why divorces are a lot messier than some like to admit.
The way we define what the church is in our setting is key in this discussion. If we shrink it down to only mean a building, a staff, an eldership, and so on we are cheating ourselves. So, Am I a fan of surrendering to the leadership of the church? Yes and no. Let me explain.
I tread lightly in even suggesting this for it is obviously a case by case issue and difficult to cover with a broad sweeping statement, but I think this is where my issues are rooted from with this topic. In the scenerio where foul play is involved with the leadership and in the rare instance where they are not capable (or willing) to look out for the best interest of the minister it would be difficult to surrender to the orders (yes, that word was used on purpose) of the leadership one happens to be under. And though it is hard to equate in theory, men are emotional people and there are political struggles in the local church.
So how now shall we decide on what ministry job (yes, that word was used on purpose) to take? Do we simply go out on our own and make our own choices? No. In fact, I suggest that the church, and I mean a local church, is very involved in our congregational moves. I wish to bring up the role of a minister's ordaining church. I had a group of men who laid hands on me last May that know me, know my gifts, and love my wife and I. And I can honestly say that I would have no problem turning over any decision to them, in fact I would even submit to them if I disagreed. And Torrie would do the same. I think this is part of the answer, certainly since we don't have bishops who provide an outside/neutral opinion and guidance.
Epp,
Thanks, bro. Celebacy here I come. Thanks for the suggestion!
I would be terribly interested in Mr. Parsons commments in this discussion. As a fellow "missions guy" I wonder how understandable and applicable this discussion would be to a place like where he is. When I was in Africa and in Ecuador the local churches were a couple years old, and there was no church leadership (elders, deacons, bishops, etc.). I wonder what Abusa (the pastor of 20 different village churchs) would say to Tyler's following comment on behalf of Thom:
"Would it be better if the Church made decisions that ministers and their families followed. What is best for them would thus be determined by the Church not themselves. While this goes against everything in us that tells us we are individuals with rights to what we want, but Thom is saying perhaps the Church might know what is best?"
How does the Church determine the ministers decision when there is no Church there. Many of the africans that were going to this church were not even Christians. They thought the church would just give money to them if they came. After they left church they went to their tribal "worship service."
I wish every minister in America would read and heed to the advice and wisdom given in this discussion. I just don't think it would make much sense to a national pastor working in an "unreached" people group. How does the Church know what is best for this pastor when there is no Church?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I sure I'm just being dense, but Thom your argument seems so disconnected from the reality that I have lived that it just doesn't make a lot sense to me. Of course scripture tells us to respect and submit to the leaders of the church (who are they exactly?) but do those statements really refer to a preacher's located ministry? Under your proposal a minister would only leave a church when asked to leave (fired). Is this really healthy for the kingdom? Maybe if you gave me a concrete scenario of what you're talking about it would help me to understand.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey, two more comments will make this the most popular post to date. Good one Jay!
Whoa, Holy butter-bowl!
I just left for a weekend and I come back to 48 comments. Crazy.
This whole thing went deeper than I ever though it would and I am so greatful for that. You guys have thought through this issue for me in cool ways.
The following disconnected thoughts flow through my mind...
-What about Paul's short-missionary-type stays at various churches?
-What about the way God moved Phillip where he needed him?
-The average stay for a minister in America is now 3 yrs(Spikeriet).
Crap, I got nothing else to say right now because I'm so tired. Don't worry fellas, I'll have everything figured out by morning.
Sorry Damien for misquoting you. Shows that I was listening in class just not very well. My bad.
My friend Spike's moniker has nothing to do with volleyball. His last name is Spikereit.
He probably is a decent volleyball player, though not as proficient as fellow Ambassablogger, Dan Hamel. Spike is an awsome addition to the faculty BB team.
Miss you around here, Michael.
DGF
In addition to his last name, and his father's nick-name, "Spike" reveals Damiens admiration of Cho-cho Train Tracks and the builders who spanned our country with the railroad.
In addition to his last name, his father's nickname, and his admiration for train tracks, "Spike" reveals Damien's fondness for the comic strip "Peanuts," particularly Snoopy's brother who lived in Needles, Calif. and had a funky mustache.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Jay"
My name.
Wanted to prevent the slew of questions.
Post a Comment
<< Home