A friend this week wondered out loud in front of me if we have mistaken the call to preach with the call to run an organization (the church).
Myself and the church I am pastor of have been starting to ask similar questions. We are wondering and exploring if we need a full time paid pastor. We are contemplating me getting another job and no longer taking a salary, or at least a greatly reduced one. We are asking what church would look like then and if what it then looked like would be a good thing or not. It's not a question of how to save money or how to be a church the same way just without paying a pastor, but they are questions at the core of what it means for us to be a church and what it means for us to be the people of God in the West End of Mount Vernon. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
3 comments:
When we were in Pennsylvania, my parting thought was how the church there could have been better served by putting my salary each year into a budget for a van and/or ministry related activities.
couple of thoughts: I think that it should be your leadership team's focus on keeping adminstrative costs in check with ministry costs. I think most churches are between 80-95%, imagine a church running under 50%, would this inspire more giving?
I definitely think that preaching and leading call for two different skill sets, the first hard to find, the second seems even harder.
Good topic. What is a pastor? It is a question I've been asking alot lately...well alot since my senior integrative seminar at NTS that required I answer the question in written form.
Many traditions have clear understanding of the pastoral identity, but it seems ours is lacking. You really need look no farther than the Manual's statement on theology of ordination to figure that out.
Anyway, I am rambling. I have been meditating alot on a Christus Rex statue hanging on the wall in my office. It is a crucifix, but rather than the portraying the suffering servant, it captures the reigning king consistant with John's vision of the crusifixion.
From the cross rules a Christ wearing a stole, a chausible, and a crown. The stole the symbol of the prophet; the chausible the symbol of the priesthood; and the crown the symbol of the king (or so I'm told!). Why bring this up? I think it helps us understand our role as pastors.
The prophets job was to always keep a clear vision of the Kingdom of God before the people. Sometimes it was an encouraging message, sometimes it was harsh trying to get people back in line with Kingdom values. As pastors our job is to alway embody the kingdom and to always give the people a clear understanding of the kingdom and what life lived therein means.
The priest's job was to facilitate worship and to offer prayers. As pastors we do the priestly things when we faithfully preach the word, rightfully administer the sacraments (think broad...communion, baptism, weddings, funerals, annointings, etc), and regularly pray for and with our people.
The king is not a dictator, but a benevolent gentleman. He wants his kingdom to thrive. He wants his people to succeed. He wants both to grow and he makes sure they have the resources necessary for heathly living. Pastors are good kings when they equip people for ministry and facilitate good stewardship of the church's resources (human, capital, time, etc).
Prophet, Priest, King.
Visionary, Worshipper, Steward.
make any sense?
i'm pretty sure that i now fully favor what has been called "bi-vocational." though i can't separate vocation from the rest of ministry. so... how about pastor's live life in the neighborhood doing whatever job and still lead and teach people the way of jesus everywhere he goes?
Post a Comment