Today I was pondering a moment when a well-meaning member of Central proudly said to a group of visitor’s last summer, “I hired him!” The language fascinates me because this is, in fact, the way that a good number of folks look at their pastors – they were “hired” and therefor are “employees.” This particular woman didn’t mean that – but it’s amazing how language manages to cover up what we think we mean!
Here’s why I don’t like the idea of “hiring” pastors and other paid staff-members in the Church:
- If a pastor is “hired,” then the pastor is an employee. As such, the pastor’s primary responsibility is to make their employers “happy.”
- If a pastor is “called,” then the pastor is a shepherd. As such, the pastor’s primary responsibility is to help lead the congregation into spiritual vitality in the name and way of Jesus. This may often make congregants “unhappy.”
Of course, real life is no where this clean, but these are the poles along which I navigate. As I get stretched between them by the various expectations of Central’s community members – I am, myself, called to become like Jesus alongside these people (a reality that leads me to embrace the second point).
Next time you speak of your pastor, or where you worship, try to remember that how we use language will inevitably color the way we (and those we speak with) see reality.
Discover more from Painfully Hopeful
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yeah.
And there is a flip side, too. Your family needs to be supported. It can be dangerous from the pastor side, also.
Money is dangerous in part because it skews our value system. It becomes a measure. I think the language is reflecting something deeper.
What would a purely-“called” system look like?
And I think another part of it is the widely-accepted inherent separation between clergy and laity. Why are clergy not raised up (recognized) from within the local community? It just seems wrong to me, the whole leave-your-church-for-seminary-then-find-a-job-when-you-graduate thing. I think we are following a wrong model in that. What about the 1st century rabbi training/mentoring model? Why are we not still using it?
Much to contemplate.
Well, the University Model of the Late Medieval/Early Enlightenment era is kinda entrenched at this point. A lot of seminaries see the weakness of their education model as a preparation for ministry – but they’re stuck because a lot of the pastors they’ve processed through their pastor-factories don’t know how to mentor younger ministers (take a look at a seminary’s mentored ministry or field ed listings some time – usually it’s churches wanting to get people to do jobs the pastor doesn’t want to do).
Kinda sad, really. I’ve been fortunate on my journey to be friends with pastors who were called to mentor others, most pastors I know don’t have this.