Newbigin On Pastoral Ministry
How one can complete 8 years of full-time theological education, including not less than four missions & eveangelism courses, and not encounter Leslie Newbigin’s Gospel In A Pluralist Society (1989) is simply beyond comprehension. If one wants to understand what is going on in the field of missions and evangelism today, one has to start with this masterpiece published over twenty years ago. When one reads the popular emergent church authors like Rob Bell and Brian McClaren, one hears the clear echoes of Leslie Newbigin. When one reads the more mainstream missional church authors like Daryl Guder and Alan Roxburgh, one hears the clear echoes of Leslie Newbigin. When one reads the academics such as Bryan Stone, one hears the clear echoes of Leslie Newbigin. Leslie Newbigin’s Gospel In A Pluralist Society is a must read for anyone wanting to understand better the missionary nature of the faith and of the Church.
I could go on and on and on, quoting the gems in this classic test, but I want simply to reflect on one particular quote that truly resonates with my heart in parish ministry.
What kind of ministerial leadership will nourish the Church in its faithfulness to the gospel in a pluralist society? It is frequently said that the Church in Britain is now in a missionary situation. It is not clear that the full meaning of this has been understood. We have lived for so many centuries in the “Christendom” situation that ministerial training is almost entirely conceived in terms of the pastoral care of existing congregations. In a situation of declining numbers, the policy has been to abandon areas (such as the inner cities [- or the case could be made for rural areas as well]) where active Christians are few to concentrate ministerial resources by merging congregations and deploying ministers in the places where there are enough Christians to support them. Needless to say, this simply accelerates the decline. It is the opposite of a missionary strategy, which would proceed in the opposite direction – deploying ministers in the areas where the Christian presence is the weakest (235-6).
When I read this, my mind immediately jumped to the way The Church of the Nazarene matches pastors with congregations. The prevailing philosophy seems to be the big churches get the best pastors while the little struggling churches have to settle for the left overs. This is quite ironic because we are a denomination of little churches, yet the system is so slanted toward the big churches.
Not long ago our Pensions and Benefits Board voted to change the retirement system for our pastors. Previously, every pastor got a set retirement contribution and a bonus contribution if their church paid their P&B Allocation in full. Under the new plan, the dollar amount of a pastor’s retirement contribution is proportional to the dollar amount her church pays to the P&B Allocation. In other words, large church pastors get a larger retirement, while small church pastors get a smaller retirement. This is but one example of the way The Church of the Nazarene favors the big churches and ignores its smaller churches.
There are many pastors (myself included) that would love to pastor smaller, poorer churches in our urban and rural communities. The problem is that such pastors are typically forced to choose between either (a) living near the poverty line, with no employer provided benefits; (b) being bivocational in order to provide for the family and giving the church what time and engergy is left (which is no recipe for success); or (c) moving up the “ladder” to a bigger church in order to provide for one’s family. Inevitably then, the “best pastors” will inevitably gravitate to the bigger churches, leaving the smaller churches to struggle. Think about it. When was the last GS elected right out of a church whose average attendance was fewer than 100? How about a DS? It doesn’t happen because the “good pastors” pastor the “College Churches” of the world.
Please don’t get me wrong. I am absolutely not criticizing any “College Church” pastors; they are indeed wonderful pastors. The system, however, does exactly what Newbigin describes. It accelerates the growth of the big churches and accelerates the decline of the small struggling churches. What if we created a system that made it possible for the “good ones” to pastor small churches. What if we incentivized pastors to stay in small churches instead of pushing them to take ever larger ones?
In my opinion, the simplest way to accomplish this is through the pay structure. If Districts were directed to implement a pay matrix, similar to that used by teachers and other professions, where pay is determined by (a) years of service and (b) education, then much of this issue would be resolved. As an added bonus, it would also incentivize education! A pastor would be paid the same whether she served a church of fifty or fifty-thousand. That salary should have to include health insurance and retirement as well. Churches who can afford to meet that pay level would be free to call their own pastors, while churches who cannot afford to meet that pay level would be matched with another nearby church who together would share the pastor and the cost.
I realize that change of this magnitude is likely to never happen, but Newbigin is right to assert that churches serious about missions have to reverse the trend and figure out how to deploy the strongest pastors in areas where the Christian presence is weakest.
So how would you approach this difficult task?
I could go on and on and on, quoting the gems in this classic test, but I want simply to reflect on one particular quote that truly resonates with my heart in parish ministry.
What kind of ministerial leadership will nourish the Church in its faithfulness to the gospel in a pluralist society? It is frequently said that the Church in Britain is now in a missionary situation. It is not clear that the full meaning of this has been understood. We have lived for so many centuries in the “Christendom” situation that ministerial training is almost entirely conceived in terms of the pastoral care of existing congregations. In a situation of declining numbers, the policy has been to abandon areas (such as the inner cities [- or the case could be made for rural areas as well]) where active Christians are few to concentrate ministerial resources by merging congregations and deploying ministers in the places where there are enough Christians to support them. Needless to say, this simply accelerates the decline. It is the opposite of a missionary strategy, which would proceed in the opposite direction – deploying ministers in the areas where the Christian presence is the weakest (235-6).
When I read this, my mind immediately jumped to the way The Church of the Nazarene matches pastors with congregations. The prevailing philosophy seems to be the big churches get the best pastors while the little struggling churches have to settle for the left overs. This is quite ironic because we are a denomination of little churches, yet the system is so slanted toward the big churches.
Not long ago our Pensions and Benefits Board voted to change the retirement system for our pastors. Previously, every pastor got a set retirement contribution and a bonus contribution if their church paid their P&B Allocation in full. Under the new plan, the dollar amount of a pastor’s retirement contribution is proportional to the dollar amount her church pays to the P&B Allocation. In other words, large church pastors get a larger retirement, while small church pastors get a smaller retirement. This is but one example of the way The Church of the Nazarene favors the big churches and ignores its smaller churches.
There are many pastors (myself included) that would love to pastor smaller, poorer churches in our urban and rural communities. The problem is that such pastors are typically forced to choose between either (a) living near the poverty line, with no employer provided benefits; (b) being bivocational in order to provide for the family and giving the church what time and engergy is left (which is no recipe for success); or (c) moving up the “ladder” to a bigger church in order to provide for one’s family. Inevitably then, the “best pastors” will inevitably gravitate to the bigger churches, leaving the smaller churches to struggle. Think about it. When was the last GS elected right out of a church whose average attendance was fewer than 100? How about a DS? It doesn’t happen because the “good pastors” pastor the “College Churches” of the world.
Please don’t get me wrong. I am absolutely not criticizing any “College Church” pastors; they are indeed wonderful pastors. The system, however, does exactly what Newbigin describes. It accelerates the growth of the big churches and accelerates the decline of the small struggling churches. What if we created a system that made it possible for the “good ones” to pastor small churches. What if we incentivized pastors to stay in small churches instead of pushing them to take ever larger ones?
In my opinion, the simplest way to accomplish this is through the pay structure. If Districts were directed to implement a pay matrix, similar to that used by teachers and other professions, where pay is determined by (a) years of service and (b) education, then much of this issue would be resolved. As an added bonus, it would also incentivize education! A pastor would be paid the same whether she served a church of fifty or fifty-thousand. That salary should have to include health insurance and retirement as well. Churches who can afford to meet that pay level would be free to call their own pastors, while churches who cannot afford to meet that pay level would be matched with another nearby church who together would share the pastor and the cost.
I realize that change of this magnitude is likely to never happen, but Newbigin is right to assert that churches serious about missions have to reverse the trend and figure out how to deploy the strongest pastors in areas where the Christian presence is weakest.
So how would you approach this difficult task?
posted by EF + at 6:23 PM
5 Comments:
It sounds like you want to be a Methodist as far as church structure is concerned.
I think you are being a little harsh towards the options provided us pastors. My reading is that you can't be bi-vocational and truly serve the church. That alone speaks of extraordinary privilege. I don't like the fact that it is the denomination's fault that pastors can't serve the inner city because of pay. This also goes against Newbigin.
Having been apart of a couple churches where another church sponsored the pastor's salary has made the sponsor look at the pastor/church being sponsored as a pet rather than ministry.
I believe what Newbigin is saying is to take the initiative. Go and create the opportunities to minister where the Church is weakest. Screw denominational politics. Go where you hear the people crying for deliverance.
I think Methodism's structure has some clear advantages. But so does ours. Which is why I think we can take the best of both and make a system that is better than either.
Perhaps I am being a little simplistic in terms of the options available to pastors, but I think my statement is fair.
I do not believe that one can be as effective bi-vocationally as one could be if serving the church was her sole vocation. We can debate the merits of vocational, professional clergy til we are all blue in the face, but it likely won't get us anywhere. For that reason, I'd like to not even go there.
One thing is absolutely does not do is "speak of extraordinary privilege." The logic of such an assertion is befuddling. Again, from Newbigin,
"In some Christian circles it is unfashionable to talk much about the ordained ministry [and might I add a vocational clergy?] because of the fear of being guilty of elitism, one of contemporary society's catalogue of unforgivable sins... The whole church is called to be - in Christ - a royal priesthood, and that this priesthood is to be exercised in the daily life and work of Christians in the secular business of the world. But this will not happen unless there is a ministerial priesthood which serves, nourishes, sustains, and guides this priestly work. The priestly people needs a ministering priesthood to sustain and nourish it... clergicalism and anticlericalism are simply two sides of one mistake."
The issue is not elitism, but servanthood.
The fact that Newbigin sets this discussion in terms of "deployment" and "policy" are clear indications that this quote is not discussing a particular minister's desire to screw the denomination, but rather he is clearly discussing the strategy and policy of the denomination in how ministers are deployed and where they are sent.
So, the question stands, and I'll even broaden it a bit to spur more conversation:
1) In light of Newbigin's comment, how do you evaluate the system of deployment utilized by The Church of the Nazarene?
2) What steps would you take to bring that system into a more missional focus as described by Newbigin?
You are both talking about "United" Methodist structure (and perhaps the African American Methodist churches). You are not talking about British, Free, Wesleyan or Nazarene structures; all of which are Methodist structures.
(Couldn't help it. Just saying, there is more than on "Methodist" church, and Nazarenes are one example.)
As to the bi-vocational, I know a number of bi-vocational pastors who are probably better pastors than I am. I don't think that they are necessarily as theologically informed/acurate, nor historically so, nor biblically aware. In those senses, I think that I may be a "better pastor." But in terms of pastoring the people and even "growing the church." I know a number who are better than me.
But for people like me, who have considered church planting, etc. and who recognize the need to be bi-vocational in doing so, I simply have no real training outside of the church and the jobs I have had making my way through school.
Many of the bi-vocaitonal pastors I know are second career pastors. They are construction workers, etc.
That's not something I could do (or that anyone would hire me for). So, to find another job that could support my family in this economy would be quite difficult.
Yet, I do think that, if the denomination would provide support, I could plant a strong congregation; not just in terms of numbers of people, but in terms of truly, deeply growing disciples.
So, yes, I believe there are problems with our approach. Not sure I know the answers, though.
I do know that we have one g.s. promoting (at district assemblies) a kind of approach that seems to deeply devalue our formal education and pastor financial support.
Todd+
Yes. He preached at the ordination service on our district this year, and he did seem "to deeply devalue our formal education and pastor financial support." -- in an ordination service!!!
Shame on him.
It's fine for him to hold that position, and even to promote it as a regional director (though I wouldn't like it), but I am dismayed that he would use his episcopal position to promote such a thing at district assemblies.
Post a Comment
<< Home