Ecclesiology 5 - A New Church - part 4: The Staff

     The next chapter of Wineskins is subtitled 'Must the Pastor be a Superstar?'  It's likely the shortest chapter in the book.  In it, Snyder describes a suburban church pastor who "can preach, counsel, evangelize, administrate, conciliate, communicate, and sometimes even integrate.  He can also raise the budget.  He handles Sunday morning better than any quizmaster on weekday TV.  He's better with words than most political candidates.  As a scholar, he surpasses many seminary professors.  No church function would be complete without him.  His church, of course, counts itself fortunate.  Alas, not many churches can boast such talent."

    That's pretty much it from Snyder.  I take full responsibility for everything that follows.

    Western Protestant churches tend to load all the responsibility for carrying out church mission onto one person, whom we'll gladly pay to do the job, aided by a small staff of other professionals - a music director, a secretary, a janitor, a few professional musicians - whom we also pay.  This arrangement accomplishes several goals: (1) it sees that all the church functions are carried out in as professional and streamlined a manner as possible, (2) it ensures that the church is accomplishing its missions according to the highest possible standards, and (3) it keeps any of the rest of us from having to get our hands dirtier than we would like.  After all, the best part about volunteering is the option to not volunteer when it is inconvenient or disagreeable to do so.  By hiring professionals to run our churches, we are relieved of that burden.  An entire industry has grown up around this system.  The number of people who have been "called by God" to attend seminaries (at considerable expense to themselves and their families) in the hopes of becoming "professional pastors" is in the hundreds of thousands.

    And it's completely unnecessary.  The church does not need a polished, professional veneer to carry out its mission.  Indeed, between our Gothic buildings and our slick-talking ministers, the church can be and often is a great repulsion to a large portion of the very population we're seeking to reach.  Beyond that is the fact that staffs are a huge drain on our budgets.  It's not just the salaries, it's also the health insurance, the 401ks, the paid leave, the purchase and upkeep of the parsonage, the gas and meal reimbursements and, in most states, the mandatory Worker's Compensation insurance.  None of which should be viewed as a condemnation of the men and women of the cloth who commit to those years of study and a career in what is so often a thankless job.  I'm sure that, with the odd exception here and there, they are a dedicated lot who deserve nothing less than our admiration and support.  The criticism here is toward the system that creates the need for the professional clergy in the first place.  So, what should we do with our church staffs?

    Fire them.

    Okay, yes, I admit to having isolated that sentence primarily for its shock value, but hear me out.  I have three reasons for eliminating a professional church staff.

(1) We don't need them.  Not only are professional staff not needed in the church, their presence can stymie the Holy Spirit's use of the laity.   In any group of enlightened Christians of say 25 or so, someone can be found with excellent oratory skills, someone with a great singing voice or the ability to play a musical instrument.  Someone would make an excellent accountant, an excellent teacher, an excellent counselor.  Why aren't they using their gifts?  No one has asked them!  And, why should we?  We have trained professionals to do all that!

    In my posts dated May 4 and 10 of this year, I point out that the entire human race is one organism.  Even more so for the enlightened church.  As Paul tells the Corinthians, "Now, you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.  And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then miracle-workers, then gifts of healing, or the ability to help others or power to guide them, or the gift of ecstatic utterance of various kinds." (1 Chor. 12:27-28)  The Spirit gives each of us abilities that can be used to the benefit of the church and expects us to thus use them.  There's no point in doing so as long as we pay someone else to do it all.

(2) Training.  This is not to say that education is not important, for it most assuredly is.  For example, I have, for a number of years, volunteered in various capacities with the American Red Cross.  For each volunteer opportunity, this organization requires training in the particular field of interest.  Yes, we need education in protocols and specific job duties before we turn our congregants loose on the world, but I'm not sure that everyone in the church must receive a Doctorate in Divinity before we consider them qualified for service.  In my own church - the United Methodist - a parishioner must have at least a master's degree in theology from an accredited seminary just to serve as and hold the title of deacon.

(3) The Call of God.  Earlier I mentioned the "call of God," and in doing so, I assumed an almost derisive tone.  I assure the reader that derision was not my intent.  I am quite certain that God calls people to service all the time.  In fact, I think the question is not so much one of hearing God's call as one of answering it.  I do, however, have two issues with the modern colloquial use of the phrase.

    First, it amazes me how often people feel themselves called by God to do things they wanted to do all along, and usually something likely to bring glory to themselves.  People are often "called" to preach, but you never hear anyone say they were "called" to be the janitor.  Look, Abram didn't want to pack up and leave Ur, Moses didn't want to confront Pharaoh, Jonah didn't want to preach in Nineveh, Gideon didn't want to lead an army, and Amos didn't want to prophesy.  In each example, the men in question appear to have gone to extremes to avoid answering God's call.  Seems to me that, from a Scriptural viewpoint, the first test of God's call is to decide how well you like the idea of doing what you're being called to do.  I should think that, when God calls, we're almost certainly going to hate it!

    Second, so often God calls people not just to do a thing, but to get paid for doing it.  As we have already alluded, we need not have paid clergy in the church if we nurture the gifts of each individual.  "Many hands make light work," as they say.  Later, when we examine church organization, I will mention the need to provide a stipend to people who will be doing so much that they don't have time to make an outside income, but the key word will be "stipend."  Despite the preaching of Prosperity Theologians, I can't believe God calls anyone to be wealthy in His Name, when the entire mission of the church is to preach to and relieve the burden of the poor.  Many years ago, when asked by an interviewer how he justified his personal wealth with his stated Christian values, Richard DeVore, founder and CEO of Amway Corporation, is reported to have replied, "the poor cannot help the poor."  Were that true, could not God's Son - whose self-professed mission was to minister to the poor - just as easily and far more fruitfully have been born into a wealthy family as a poor one?  If Scripture teaches us anything about the Call of God, it is that (1) you're going to be called to do something you really hate, and (2) you're going to be dirt poor doing it.

    My last post was way too long, and this one is in danger of becoming so as well.  I believe I will therefore stop here and take up the subject of a Renewed Church Lay Staff on another day.

Pax