|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What if our clergy weren't our administrators?
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
This started off as a response on another thread and ended up going a whole different direction.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer on "What will happen to the church when the congregations all retire":
The attitude of most clergy I've met is that they do the stuff. I wanted to plan and advertise a Taize, "no I don't have time for another service." Who said anything about you being there Mr Clergyman, all I needed was a key to the building for one evening? Same response to my proposal in a different church to get a few together to do evening prayer, "no, I don't have the time."
We have a monthly Taize service at my church that is entirely lay-led; when the rector attends, he sits in the pews with everyone else, and the Taize group don't even recruit him to do one of the readings. But this doesn't at all prevent us from being very clergy-driven. The rector is still the rector, and he's also the CEO of the non-profit corporation that is the church's legal identity.
A couple of the local temples have at various times held their High Holy Day services at the church where I work at, and it's been a fascinating experience to see how they organize themselves and who is in charge of what. In both cases, one a well-established congregation and one a small recent start-up, the administrators took care of all the arrangements with me; I met the rabbis and cantors long enough to shake hands and exchange pleasantries, and the administrators frequently referred to things their rabbis would need or would like, but the rabbis did not spend their time talking to me about what would go on the bima or how many microphones they would need. Also, while the temple administrator is invested with a fair amount of power, he or she is simply a temple employee and as such can be laid off or fired by the board, so they can change their administration without changing their clergy.
The senior minister and I have speculated at times about how it might work if that church, which has congregational government and could make this radical change if they wanted to, adopted the model of administration the local Jewish temples use. The rabbis there are teachers and pastors, but they are not in charge of administration. You end up with a powerful church administrator that way, which would of course be disastrous if you hired the wrong person, but it does leave the Jewish laity far more in charge of the direction of their temple than I've ever seen at a church.
I wish that I'd asked more questions, especially when dealing with the administrator of the well-established temple, of what the implications are for their liturgy and other aspects of their religious life. When there is a religious thing to be organized, for instance, if they were going to start a small group ministry, who decides it's going to happen? Where does religious leadership end and nitty-gritty organization begin?
Could this model work for Christian churches? I think you'd have to have a very Protestant set-up to start with; I could see the UCC church I work for at least considering it, but not the Episcopal Church I attend.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Could this model work for Christian churches? I think you'd have to have a very Protestant set-up to start with; I could see the UCC church I work for at least considering it, but not the Episcopal Church I attend.
One of the better churches I've attended was a (inclusive Anglo-Catholic) CofE church where the vicar, while very able pastorally and as a preacher, was hopeless when it came to administration. At least that was the consensus in the congregation. That meant that the lay people who had positions of responsibility had to do all the work. So it can work very well in an Episcopal set-up if you find the right priest.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Two thoughts.
1. In a Baptist or Congregational set-up, the Minister is, in many ways, on a "level leadership playing field" with the Deacons, and indeed can be outvoted (or should I say outmanoeuvred?) by them. I certainly know of churches where the Minister does not chair Church Meetings, but leaves it to someone more able. Most church Consitutions allow this to happen.
2. It has always seemed absurd that we should expect a Minister to be a good preacher and/or worship leader, a pastor and an administrator. They are very different skills and it seems a contradiction of St. Paul's teaching on "gifts" to expect them all to be manifested in one person.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
It can work very well in an Anglican parish. When my old parish' rector left to go off to another city, we realized that, although he was very clericalist with a strong and magnetic personality, he had built up a strong lay leadership, trained by arguing with the rector over his more hare-brained schemes. During the year-long interregnum (as the diocese was figuring out its new staffing system), the parish had no drop in attendance and perhaps functioned at its highest level in years. The two retired priests who handled the services stood back as a strong choir director and a very capable MC organized liturgical things and a posse of senior bureaucrats and military folk handled the admin, along with a part-time administrator-- I began to wonder if this might work for a lot of parishes, as administrative charisms do not issue forth when an ordaining bishop sings the Veni Creator. Mind you, my perspective is perhaps coloured by the ten-year disaster which followed under a new rector with a political programme and a very strong personality.
It might also suit the RCs as their priestly cohort shrinks. One of my MW reports refers to the very active French country parish where the priest cheerily told me that the parishioners ran the place and they could answer my query. Like many French clerics, he had several churches and was kept quite busy just doing the magic bits. An acquainance of mine in the Latin Diocese of Saint Hyacinthe is a retired union president who is now a full-time (but unpaid) parish administrator with a team of volunteers, freeing up the priest for pastoral work-- the priest admitted that he preferred this. In my old home town, two of the francophone parishes have permanent deacons who are paid parish administrators.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rogue
Shipmate
# 2275
|
Posted
I agree. The smart minister will know their own strengths and apply them. They will find lay people who can do what they are not so good at and give them the job. As long as the results work then fantastic. If it starts to go wrong the minister will need to step in, establish why something isn't working and find training or other people.
Where that becomes interesting is when a minister moves on and another arrives whose strengths are different. Lay people doing certain jobs will find that the new minister wants to do "their" jobs and other lay people will be required to step up.
--------------------
If everyone starts thinking outside the box does outside the box come back inside?
Posts: 2507 | From: Toton | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
That's still a very clergy-driven model, The Rogue. It's all organized around the minister's strengths, and it's the minister who steps in if things go wrong. And probably the minister who decides if and when things are going wrong.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
One of the problems I saw in not-a-church (a non-profit community chorus) may (or may not) be thought-provoking. Volunteer chorus, with a minimally paid professional artistic director. Board of directors divided up the work, recruited helpers from membership of about 100 (plus some spouses could be put to work.)
They hired a secretary to help with records needed for grant requests, and immediately much of the regular work the volunteers had been doing those volunteers dumped on the secretary. That was not the idea in hiring her! But the common thought was, why should I do the work free when someone who is being paid can do it?
I've heard comments in churches like "Me visit the sick? That's what we pay the clergy to do!"
There's not just the "clergy grabbing control" issue, there's also the "people gladly letting the paid help do the work" issue. Lots of sad stories on both sides.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
That's still a very clergy-driven model, The Rogue. It's all organized around the minister's strengths, and it's the minister who steps in if things go wrong. And probably the minister who decides if and when things are going wrong.
Probably something to do with the fact, that when things do go wrong it is the vicar who is held accountable.
Belle ringer said 'I've heard comments in churches like "Me visit the sick? That's what we pay the clergy to do!"
There's not just the "clergy grabbing control" issue, there's also the "people gladly letting the paid help do the work" issue. Lots of sad stories on both sides. '
This is so true - one of the churches in our group constantly says 'that's the vicars job/the vicar does that.' If they had their way the vicar, who has more than one church, would spend all their time tending the boiler and organising the grass cutting, never mind doign the administration...
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think that this is an important question. There is often a mis-match between man-made roles and God's calling, so that ministers feel that they're expected to carry out all manner of tasks (like Martha) when they'd achieve more by listening to Christ (like Mary).
People are used to the hierarchical structures of the organised Churches, many of which reflect those in the secular world. Ministers, like other managers, may complain about it, and be stressed as a result of it, but may want to hold onto the status and power it gives them.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
There's not just the "clergy grabbing control" issue, there's also the "people gladly letting the paid help do the work" issue. Lots of sad stories on both sides.
That really is a real issue. Another form of it is that if churches were to need a paid administrator, they'd have to, well, pay them. It's easier to have the minister, who everyone agrees is necessary to the church, do the administration bit rather than to come up with the money to hire someone else.
I suspect there's a historical element at work, too. So long as churches with an episcopal hierarchy required priests to do things like administer the church, the bishop and any other hierarchy would be able to keep things relatively under control. (I'm trying to word that in a neutral way; there can be good and bad about it.)
Also, long ago, the priests were more likely to have a decent education. That's no longer true. It seems that what Baptist Train Fan said above:
quote:
2. It has always seemed absurd that we should expect a Minister to be a good preacher and/or worship leader, a pastor and an administrator. They are very different skills and it seems a contradiction of St. Paul's teaching on "gifts" to expect them all to be manifested in one person.
really applies. Not only is it bad for the laity in the church, it's bad for the minister. We shouldn't be encouraging the vice of being a control freak in those priests for whom being a control freak is a temptation.
ISTM we can also add Jesus' mandate for servant ministry here. A priest may feel like s/he is serving by doing everything, but really fostering a humble attitude that seeks to allow others to exercise their gifts is a form of service to the assembly.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
There seems to be a huge variety of practice across churches. One Anglican Team Ministry I know operated on a lay-administrated model, with the Team Rector picking up his rota for services from the office just like everyone else. I believe he shared the chair, though in other ways he was fairly assertive of his own authority - which one would expect. He had, as he said, been introduced to the parish ostensibly to oversee a huge refurbishment programme; though he was also a good preacher, well organized and a very clear thinker. But he had no problems in letting talented lay folk do their stuff (or his stuff, for that matter, within the canons).
The Team Ministry I was in as a curate comprised a Local Ministry Team (yes, it got confusing!), made up of, I think, about six 'Lay Ministers'. I put the term in brackets, only to distinguish them from what Anglicans may normally think of when they hear that phrase. They were part of strategic meetings - ran an industrial chaplaincy, did school assemblies, bereavement visiting, took communion to the nursing homes, and much more. Some of them were servers at communion, as well, and chalice administrants; and some were given permission by the Bishop to lead non-eucharistic worship.
It worked well, but I think there was an extraordinary combination of just the right people, the right Team Rector, and a heck of a lot of preparation and education of the congregation. It is continuing, I believe, though personnel has changed. This diocese, I have to say, made a Local Ministry Team a pre-requisite for having and Ordained Local Minister.
Not too far down the road was another church with a rather patriarchal, control-freakish kind of vicar; but he also believed strongly in developing lay gifts, so he was never short of focused, talented groups of enthusiastic lay colleagues or assistants. The vision was his, as vicar, (or God's!) but he was gifted at encouraging his lay folk into really getting stuck into almost every aspect of church life.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Problems as I see it: either you have a paid administrator in addition to a paid priest/minister (which for many congregations would be an impossible burden); or you have a paid administrator and an unpaid priest who would end up as a simple mass-priest (or non-sacramental equivalent) with little or no pastoral involvement because, having to earn a living elsewhere, they had no spare time.
Or you have a team of volunteers (possibly including the priest) who share the tasks among themselves. This movement towards 'every member ministry' has been encouraged for some time now, in the C of E and probably in most other churches, but the danger is of seeing 'churchy' tasks as the most important part of a Christian's ministry. I suspect many very committed and prayerful Christians keep a very low profile in church because they don't want to be dragged away from their real calling to be Christ in the world.
Talk like this is fine for flourishing suburban churches with many human and financial resources. But for a struggling rural or inner-city parish it's a sure way of loading guilt onto people and ensuring that the church is insulated from its local community.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
We're quite a busy town church so have a full-time Parish Administrator. So office work, etc. is completely covered. The only thing I'd say from experience is that you really do need to appoint someone who is au fait with churches in general and your denomination / churchmanship in particular. There is otherwise a lot of wasted time in correcting quite basic mistakes arising from a lack of understanding. Obviously ability to strictly observe confidentiality issues is also imperative.
I'm not so sure about liturgical management, which has traditionally been the preserve of the priest. I've heard many horror stories of 'death by worship committee', but input from a small team - possibly including other clergy/readers the Director of Music and the Sunday School leader, at the very least, would seem to make sense. Although the priest is probably the most theologically trained person in the parish, there may be others with advanced insight, eg. theology graduates, RE teachers, in the congregation, who could give valuable input.
The traditional stewardship campaigns used to ask for people to give time, talents and money to the church. I'm not so sure that we've ever really got to grips with the 'talents' part yet.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
How very Reformed of you, Ruth. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
If your United Church of Christ congregation can't get up to being lay-led, then my dear cousins just aren't doing it right.
The United Church of Canada places most of the administrative burden on the Chair of the Official Board/Church Board/Church Council (the three organizational models allowed in our Canon Law). Ministers have little to do with administration, nothing to do with personnel and are not allowed near money.
In terms of secular administration, the only thing they are needed for is to appear at Church Council meetings so that said meeting is official and they are the ex-officio Chair of the Board of Trustees, the body that holds title to a church's property in reversionary interest.
My church has a Church Council. The members of the Council are Elders (all churches MUST have Elders) and have a specific area of responsibility: Property, Pastoral Care, Worship.... I'm Worship Team Leader. The Worship Team consists of the organist, myself and anyone else who has a particular interest.
We recently sent our minister on a four month Sabbatical. Our Council is thus taking the burden and we have Sunday Pulpit Supply Ministers. As Worship Team Leader, I make sure that guest ministers are comfortable and have idea of what we expect and what our routine is. Each Sunday of the Sabbatical has a Lay Leader who makes sure everything but the Sermon is taken care of, the guest can then change that if they wish. Some do, some don't. So far nothing has fallen through, which was the idea.
We also have a Pastoral Care Team which has taken charge of the important Pastoral Care role of the Minister and will continue when he returns. The Manual says that Elders *should* have districts to visit and this Team does the pastoral visiting which is such a Reformed strength but has fallen by the wayside in most churches.
The thing though with this level of involvement is that the Minister will not always get his way and will be challenged on occasion. Another, particularly for Worship is that many people don't like lay leaders taking away or revealing the "Magic" of the service, like where lessons come from (the lectionary) or who implement new services (for the minister to do, because he's not a liturgist but we can still have nice things).
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The United Church of Canada places most of the administrative burden on the Chair of the Official Board/Church Board/Church Council (the three organizational models allowed in our Canon Law). Ministers have little to do with administration, nothing to do with personnel and are not allowed near money.
The thing though with this level of involvement is that the Minister will not always get his way and will be challenged on occasion.
I have seen churches that were theoretically like this, but in fact the Board gave in to anything the clergy wanted. One church it was their "respect" for the clergy, as if being ordained means whatever you do is holy and to be yielded to. (I think it's that centuries - long dependency training of church structure, and centuries of referring to clergy as if different "the man of God," the "reverend" as if THIS person is to be respected, revered, not the rest of us.).
I have also seen the Board be very upset at what the clergy person is doing but do nothing because (a) doing something is work (who likes work, besides the Board all have full time jobs elsewhere, they are tired before they get to the Board meeting), (b) doing something will cause conflict with those in the church who defend clergy no matter what and the Board are conflict avoiders, (c) the clergy person is an expert manipulator and and the Board are out-classed, don't know what is going on, don't believe those who point it out until too late.
Structure is half the game, the other half is church culture and Board workers willing to attack problems.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
I agree completely, Belle Ringer. Sure there are clergy-dominated churches in the structures I described, there are also lay-dominated ones. UCCan congregations can and do dismiss their ministers under either Section 46 or Section 363 of The Manual. It's a right royal mess when they do and Presbytery, as ever, has to step in and act as firefighters.
But the trend for the last 30 years in the UCCan is for clergy to try to enable lay roles as much as possible. Many aren't particularly active in board meetings.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
But the trend for the last 30 years in the UCCan is for clergy to try to enable lay roles as much as possible.
YEA! I think if clergy saw their role as helping lay people identify and use their gifts, including the gifts relevant to leading worship, churches would be more alive and attractive, and -- important in various times and places -- would be able to thrive when there is no clergy for whatever reason (including Christianity is illegal, or the town is in a remote location where few clergy are willing to live, or the sole clergy person for miles around had a nervous breakdown from dealing with church people and needs a few months off to recover.)
I've been told it's a lot to ask of clergy because it's a much harder job to help others develop their talents/gifts than to just do it all. Any parent can probably relate.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rowen
Shipmate
# 1194
|
Posted
The UCC is very similar to the Uniting Church here in Oz. Structures are designed to encourage lay people, and to shar with clergy the many tasks of the church.
I do little admin, thankfully, as that is not my gifting nor really my role. Nor do I have the time. Elders and lay councillors do that, although I am privy to most things.
Apart from anything else, my parish is several 100 sq km, so I drive my car and let those who administrate well, do their job...
[ 18. June 2012, 18:39: Message edited by: Rowen ]
--------------------
"May I live this day… compassionate of heart" (John O’Donoghue)...
Posts: 4897 | From: Somewhere cold in Victoria, Australia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The senior minister and I have speculated at times about how it might work if that church, which has congregational government and could make this radical change if they wanted to, adopted the model of administration the local Jewish temples use.
Sorry for the tangent Ruth, but a quick question - what is a Jewish temple?
I've never come across a (21st century) Jewish temple before. What is the difference between that and a synagogue?
[ 18. June 2012, 22:48: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Reform Jewish congregations frequently say "temple" instead of "synagogue," though they will also use that term as well. A lot of their congregations use the word "temple" in their names; the local congregation I've dealt with the most is Temple Israel, and they talk about "going to temple" the way we talk about "going to church." I'm sure I picked up that usage from them. My understanding is that Reform Jews think their local places of worship can be called temples because they don't place the same emphasis on rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem that other branches of Judaism do.
[ 18. June 2012, 23:09: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Thanks a lot - that is really helpful.
(I was just intrigued because I had assumed that sacrifices were necessary for a Jewish temple. But there you go. I've never met British or Australian Jews who talk about their temple (although maybe I haven't met many Reformed Jews). Although one Jew did once explain to me that the way they celebrated Yom Kippur now was through acts of repentance - as a replacement for sacrifices. Maybe there is similar thinking here?)
Sorry for the tangent.
As for the thread, I agree with those who note the impact of consumerism on churches. Consciously or not most churches seem to operate on the assumption that 'we pay the clergy to run the church.'
I'm not saying that you are doing this Ruth, but often volunteer hours are simply another form of financial contribution - and those who pay the piper expect to play the tune! In other words those who support the church (either through funding, volunteering or both) feel they should decide what events and programs the church puts on. Part of church leadership involves deciding the best use of limited resources. You may well be happy to run your service without any support from your clergy but the fact remains that you will then have less time to do something else. I'm fairly easy going with things like this - and would normally let people who want to try something give it a go - but with the clear proviso that if it doesn't meet a need or if it becomes a burden we pull the plug pronto.
I'm all for plural leadership, involving clergy and laity, but the most important issue is service - Christian leadership is about servanthood. While we are trapped in the mentality of service providers and consumers any model is bound to fail.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
The Canons make a pretty clear distinction between Lay and Clerical responsibility in my denomination. Basically a parish priest should not have to worry about anthing to do with the building or with finance. That should all be taken care of by the vestry.
On the other hand, liturgy, music, and Christian Ed are all clergy functions which can be delegated in sum or in part to others. I have found that all of us delegate some functions on this list. For example, I have an organist to whom I delegate much of the detailed stuff concerning music, and a Sunday School Director who deals with education for the under-14s.
The system breaks down when one side interfers with the other, though there is a grey area called 'advice' or 'expressing concern.' A couple of times we have had a tense moments when I have basically felt it necessary to tell the vestry that I would appreciate them respecting the boundaries of their role as much as I respect the boundaries of mine.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Yes, it is tricky if priests get overly worried and bogged down by finance and fabric issues, leaving them too exhausted to give much time to spiritual issues. I've noticed a change (not sure how widespread) in recent years as the financial situation has got more dire - it used to be seen as 'unseemly' for the vicar to preach about money, or to ask people directly how much they give to the church, or to ask them to consider leaving legacies. Now, though, priests have started to get more hard-nosed, rather like other charities, as they are worried that if they don't the money won't be forthcoming.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
It's never been 'unseemly' in any of the churches I've been in over the years for the clergy to talk money.
We had a stewardship campaign, in a church I was in in the 80's and even then they ahrke dback to a previous campaign 15 years before.
I ahve met individual clergy who are embarrassed to talk money to their congregations.
I remember and old vicar years ago saying he was taught in college that there should be one sermon a year on each topic of 'death, sex and money'
If they were embarrassed about talking money heavens knows how they felt about the sex one!!!
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
If they were embarrassed about talking money heavens knows how they felt about the sex one!!!
You'd think so. But talk about a Christian's wallet and you're touching a much more sensitive issue than anything a sermon on sex has to say!
Give me sex any day ( ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) if you see what I mean).
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
It's never been 'unseemly' in any of the churches I've been in over the years for the clergy to talk money.
It can be very tricky for Ministers to talk about money which needs to be spent on renovating/refurbishing their church-owned houses ... especially if they know there are other needs to be met as well.
Remember that, for many churches, housing is the responsibility of the local congregation rather than of the Diocese (or similar body).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
It's never been 'unseemly' in any of the churches I've been in over the years for the clergy to talk money.
It can be very tricky for Ministers to talk about money which needs to be spent on renovating/refurbishing their church-owned houses ... especially if they know there are other needs to be met as well.
Remember that, for many churches, housing is the responsibility of the local congregation rather than of the Diocese (or similar body).
This a tangent from the OP but this issue has cropped up on the NF thread (yes another one!!).
In NF churches it is encouraged to tithe 10%. There are a number of people who have big problems with this.
However as Trainfan points out that many non-conformist churches have to generate their own finances and have a balancing act in encouraging people to give (to cover amongst many things: Ministers Stipend, expenses and running costs of the Manse and the Church as well as mission initiatives) in order to finance life for that church community.
Bringing this back to the OP I feel I have no option but to get involved in administration. There's a certain amount of self interest involved.
I serve as pastor in a very small Baptist Church and in my first year alone I have had to look at finances, health and safety, safe to grow policy as well as do the usual in chairing meetings. These things won't/didn't get done otherwise.
Lastly I have just read Eugene Peterson's book 'The Pastor'. A great read for any one in pastoral responsibilities but he is an example of handing over all the responsibilities of running the church to his Eldership.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
My apologies...
The sentence should say "...as Baptist Trainfan points out..."
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
It's never been 'unseemly' in any of the churches I've been in over the years for the clergy to talk money.
It can be very tricky for Ministers to talk about money which needs to be spent on renovating/refurbishing their church-owned houses ... especially if they know there are other needs to be met as well.
Remember that, for many churches, housing is the responsibility of the local congregation rather than of the Diocese (or similar body).
Yes I never meant to say it was easy (even though I have spent all of my adult church life in the CofE so vicarage responsibilty fall to the diocese)
But still as I said, I have met many clergy, who are embarrased to talk money to their congregations.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Consciously or not most churches seem to operate on the assumption that 'we pay the clergy to run the church.'...- and those who pay the piper expect to play the tune! In other words those who support the church (either through funding, volunteering or both) feel they should decide what events and programs the church puts on. ...While we are trapped in the mentality of service providers and consumers any model is bound to fail.
I got a little confused about the use of the word "consumers" in your post. If it's related to people thinking they've paid the clergy to run the church for them, that's been true since well before my long dead grandmother's day because it was taught to us for generations by clergy who insisted they run the church their way and we pay the bills. Lay empowerment to do church is new and, in my opinion, essential to the survival of the church in other than cities. YMMV
As to those who contribute most in time or money thinking they should have a say in matters, duh! I volunteer to do a job that uses talents I have to accomplish goals I value, not to do whatever someone else wants whether or not I have any talent or interest in it. I'm called to be a "slave of Christ" not a slave of the church institution. (No they are not the same, sometimes barely related!)
On the other hand, neither should any non-clergy whim control any aspect of church. If a committee decides the volunteer organist should play for two services instead of one every week, and play guitar instead of organ, do they really get to decide how much time he will donate or what instrument he will play? No. He volunteered to play organ one service per week. OTOH, if he selects only music that features his atheist daughter as soloist, reducing congregational singing and eliminating gifted church members from doing any solos, he's out of line. At which point the church has the choice of ask him to change or don't risk alienating him, and he can decide whether to change as requested or or quit volunteering.
Those giving more (time, money, prayer) should have a prominent say in just what they are supporting -- saying "give generously with your eyes shut, just trust me" is the appeal of the TV evangelists. But no one should have sole say in any aspect of church. Does that make me a consumerist?
(In my experience many clergy cater to the rich whether or not the rich want the attention, even in churches where officially they don't know who gives what.)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
There is a long history of controlling churchwardens in the CofE, going back years and years and causing mayhem in churches. They might stay in post 20 years+ and stifle any change at all. This is the reason that the church introduced a rule to that churchwardens can only serve 6 years unless the PCC expressly decide otherwise..
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
