paid ministry in the emerging church
Over at neurotribe, Stephen Said is hosting a discussion on the value or hindrance of paid staff in the emerging church
This was my comment:
If the emerging church is essentially about the “worship event” then I agree there is little need for paid staff. But in my experience if you want to be involved in church based missional engagement then having people who are “set aside” for leadership, administration etc is important.
There are obviously many ways this can be done and the problem with many of these discussions is that we quickly move to a either/or argument to proove our point when we should be celebrating that there are many different models that will be needed for our new missional context.
Having said that, consider the following:
- an emerging church is led by only lay leaders and focuses on encouraging mission in the lifestyle of their participants.
- an emerging church sets aside somone or people to organise and run missional programs
- an emerging church sets aside someone or people to help lead the Church
- an emerging church sets aside an administrator while having unpaid ministry staff.
All of these examples, I think are valid.
Head on over and have your say.
May 13th, 2005 at 9:35 pm
Like you am not interested in either/or models.What does interest me is where does “theology” fit.Heres my dilemma:how come churches and well meaning people get caught up(and used) in “national days of thanksgiving” and aligning themselves with some of the most extreme ends(right wing,anti muslim,christian zionist etc)of christianity;or get involved with a franklin Graham without any idea of where he’s coming from;or become avid followers of Tim Lahaye and his loopy ideas about the end of the world;or disciples of prosperity gospels?How come we follow every fad out of the USA(albeit a few years behind them)- Promisekeepers,10,000 men etc etc?
Is it because we are preoccupied with pop sociology(once heard a leading church growth man assert that there were 310 subgroups in society!!!)and sloppy theology and notions of the church eg missional=local=emerging=local.Of course the “local” is important but is not the church more than the “local”?Why do we do theology courses?Is there not a role for the “theologian” on church boards and committees and supperannuation committees,community care operations etc?Someone who is not the expert on property,finance,social work,accountants,op shop volunteer ,but who is both priest and teacher?
In short is the emerging church more than organising and running missional programs or encouraging mission in lifestyle?
May 14th, 2005 at 1:19 am
No, I don’t think it really needs to be. You can’t define the Emerging Church, only give pointers to where its headed. Maybe I’m a litle naive, but get people involved in misssion and the theology works itself out.
May 16th, 2005 at 11:39 am
The bible only gives leadership advice on the church. There are specific qualities that bishops/ Elders and deacons must have. Application is rated more highly than knowledge here.
With regard to Evangelism there are no requirements nor advice aprt from literally spreading the word.
Anyone can do it.
I would advocate no leadership in this area. Afterall who knows where the seed will be planted.
What is needed is the organisation needed to develop the church was there are seeds starting to grow.
May 16th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
You’re right, anyone can do it; which is part of a problem is that some people with some very strange ideas has ’spread the word’ and caused a lot of pain and unnecessary suffering.
The bible is written for a context of 2000 years ago - and anyway, what do you with texts such as Paul suggesting that a person be paid for their work/ministry or do not muzzle an ox when it is treading grain?
It’s all very well to have a biblical understanding, but, as you say, application is rated more highly than knowledge - where is the sense of ‘applying’ some thought to be culturally sensitive and relevant rather than reducing the text to dry pieces of ink spattered upon the page?!
The seed will be planted when people are intentional in applying and living out their faith - thus we are disciples of Christ. Simply crying our “Lord, Lord” does not equate with salvation.
May 16th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
No anthony the bible was also written for us today.
May 17th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Really? How have you come to that conclusion?
First, let me give a little more detail of what I believe;
the bible has a purpose and is useful for us today.
some passages of scripture are more easily applied because of similar context and situation.
For the writers of the New Testament, there is no indication that they planned to have their words included in the Hebrew Scripture.
May 17th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Besides all that, I wonder how the church would function without some element of paid ministry being involved?
Also, what about the question of Paul being paid for his work etc., that I indicated to begin with, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on those areas please, Homer.
May 17th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Allow me to continue (like you can stop me!)
I would rather no one was paid for the work of the church - all who are disciples need to be in the business of being Christ-like in the world. The danger of a ‘paid professional’ and I use the term loosely, is that some would choose to ignore their responsibility for the life of the Christian community and the need for their involvement in the activity in the world.
However, the reality is that some are called to this particular ‘work’ and as such, are unable to support themselves by having another paid line of work. Unless of course you are in bi-vocational ministry which works for some. And yet, the problem still exists; if ‘ministry’ in the peculiar sense of which is the experience of many churches today, is a paid position, should we then deny our own sense of looking after our families and providing for our own needs because our calling as disciples is specific to the church? If there is another way to do it, I would like to hear about it please.
May 17th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
one of the reasons we read the O/T for example is not to fall into the same habits they fell for.
The same problems that existed in the early church still exist today. Heresies are never original but rather a variation on the same theme.
My prefernce would be for the P/T bishop of a church as it imposes more responsibilities on the people of the church. notice when Paul demands the expelling of an unrepentant man from the church incorinth he doesn’t even mention the bishop but rather talks to the Church as a whole.
However if a church wants a F/T bishop I wouldn’t put up a great struggle because I see the question a bit like baptism.
There are arguments on either side and in the end it doesn’t matter too much.
May 18th, 2005 at 8:00 pm
Fair enough and thanks for your thoughts.
May 18th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
Have been interested to learn that the “emerging church” is now being challenged as a “movement” and a threat to the gospel (”Leaders call emerging church movement a threat to gospel”,David Roach.Obviously Digger someone “over there” is defining it,and either getting frightened of it or worrying like hell about its theology!
“The worldview of postmodernism….affords the movement an opportunity to hop,skip and jump thru the bible and the histor of christian thought in order to take whatever pieces they want from one theology and attach them,like doctrinal post-it notes,to whatever picture they would want to draw”(Roach).
When this happens in yankee land then rest assured the next phase,the next language,the next gurus from the States to land on our shores , will not be far behind.
Alan
May 20th, 2005 at 8:12 am
Yes Alan, it will be interesting to see what happens as a result of this “attack” on the ec with Brian Mclaren and co mainly coping the brunt.
I suspect that in the US at the moment - change to anything is not viewed favourable (mass generalisation I know). But in times of fear and uncertanity changes to religion are not going to play well.
June 9th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
paid ministry in the emerging church
paid ministry in the e…
June 26th, 2005 at 6:44 am
Baccarat Cat
paid ministry in the e…
August 8th, 2005 at 9:23 pm
Oophoi
paid ministry in the e…
August 8th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
Yeah what we need are a group of men that really have studied the bible a lot, and know it inside and out. And all of the commentaries, and all of the applications. And they need to also be devout men, men that are committed to church, to prayer. Men who fast and pray and have shown integrity in their dealings. And they need to be passionate men, who care about evangelism, and the church. And we should pay these men so that they can keep their eye on the task.
I knew Jesus was being a bit rash about the pharisees, anyone know where we can find some?
the rev
August 8th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
Oh, and another thing. The idea that more education, more money, more control, and more theologians will keep us on track sure worked well for the Catholic church didn’t it? They are going great!
Brilliant idea
the rev
December 30th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
I wonder wether the issue is about people being paid or is it just the whole devisive issue of money in general? Maybe I’m on the wrong track but it seems from where I sit that the most contentious issue in the EC movement is money. Probably becuase it’s the one thing that offends the most people. Not only do we debate should we pay someone, but we also debate how much should we give? How should we collect it? What should we do with it when we collect it? I sometimes wonder wether God created money (or gave man the capacity to create money) as a way of continually showing where our hearts are really at. I know from my own experience the one thing God continually uses to keep my heart sweet is money.