 |
|
|
|||||||
|
Thoughts?Question: Is it inherently contradictory for emerging ministers to expect to be paid to lead missional, counter-cultural communities of faith? Or, asked another way, has the professionalization of ministry birthed a laissez-faire clergy class that is robbed of its prophetic voice in service of job security?Follow-up question: What are the implications of this for the Church in a post-Christendom world? posted by Jake at 5/17/2006 08:40:00 AM  
5 Comments: |
Friends w/ Blogs
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 My Reading Queue 
 
 
 
 Just Finished 
 
 
 The Looooong List 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Previous Posts Green Martyrdom and the Christian Engagement of La... ------------ How to Not Comodify the Gospel ------------ Faith in the Age of the Ipod—Christianity and Cons... ------------ A Biblical Approach to Poverty and Affluence ------------ Christianity in a Consumer Culture ------------ Daily Devotions ------------ On Good Introductions ------------ My Master's Degree ------------ Good Stuff ------------ Ontology ------------ Archives November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007
|
Jake,
Hey, you pose a great question. I gave some thoughts to this on a recent post, entitled inspiring thoughts, the fourth quote and explanation speaks to your question. I personally like the way you asked the question the second time, but the first question is helpful as well.
Hi Jake,
I think that being paid is functional. By that I mean if we explore being bivocational and produce communities that grow, they will at some point want/need someone set aside for the community, and this seems to be the practice of a large part of the church for 2,000 years.
I see many planters being funded heavily and not exploring the benefits of being bi-vocational for a season, and I see small churches struggling to pay a full time pastor, when they could be using their money for better things.
Some see any paid ministry as axiomatic to church problems, and I think that's not the case. great question, and great site mate.
jason clark
www.jasonclark.ws
I agree with Jason. We have to avoid the dangers of thinking a full-time gig is of Christendom and that part-time (or no-time) is the savior.
Our church planted with a bi-vocational pastor. When the church grew, instead of becoming full-time, he brought on other people gifted in the areas that needed leadership. Currently we have 4 part-time, bi-vocational workers overseeing preaching, worship, arts, and children, and more on the way.
But we are projecting that within the next year, we'll have to bring someone on full-time to offer organizational and preaching support for the planting pastor (who wishes to remain bi-vocational).
I don't know if you heard him, but David Fitch was at the same conference a couple weeks ago. He's our pastor.
I would first ask if it is "paid staffing" that has deprived the church of its prophetic voice or if not speaking in prophetic situations have castrated the church? I think of "The Letter from a Birmingham Jail" written by MLK to clergy. Those clergy had a chance to speak up but chose for whatever reason to remain silent.
Have churches become too comfortable in their status and essentially been silenced by the lure of keeping power and status?
Why is counter-culturalism related to pay? If I missed another part of this discussion please direct me. Is being counter-culture related to living life a certain way and speaking the right word at the right time?
Financially speaking there are two parts to income: earning or receiving money and utilizing what you have earned. Is this question too focused on the earning end and not enough on money's use?
Just found the blog. Great stuff.
Is it inherently contradictory to be paid to lead conunter-cultural communities of faith? It seems to me that Paul wrestled with the same tye of question. His conclusion, "It's time to unmuzzle the ox."
Maybe another question, is it contardictory for "leaders" to lead people do not need "leading"?
Blessings,
Kevin