Hire Servants not professionals
We are continuing our look at the book by Bill Easum - Unfreezing Moves - Following Jesus into the mission field The other posts in the series can be found here
Unfreezing Move #7 – Hire Servants not professionals
Firstly let us say that I find the use of the word “servants” a little unfortunate. Is it just me or does this word have a relationship to slavery? I understand that, particularly in the US, the word “serve” is used to describe the relationship Ministers have to the Church. That sits comfortable with me but the use of the word “servants” does not. Anyway, let’s push on and see what Easum suggests this unfreezing move has to offer our new missional context.
Easum suggests that there have been some dramatic shifts amongst congregations that are responding to our new context:
“1. The shift from professional paid staff who direct volunteers in carrying our programs to paid servants who equip and coach unpaid servants to carry out most of the pastoral responsibilities.
2. The shift from using all paid staff to using combinations of paid and unpaid servants to fill a role or using unpaid servants in the place of paid staff
3. The shift from the lead pastor seeing the entire congregation as her or his flock to seeing a few key staff positions as his or her flock.
4. The shift from the charasimatic, lone-ranger type of leadership to more of a team-based approach to ministry.” (p117-118)
The approach of Easum to paid staff is that they should never be employed to do the ministry but rather be employed to “equip and encourage others to replicate the DNA of the church” (p118). While I understand the theory behind Easum’s argument and agree that for too long the Church has been reliant on employing people to do ministry, I still think it is a little simplistic to say that paid staff should never do ministry. Easum goes on to say that stuck congregations “find these changes very hard to comprehend” (p118). So, maybe I fall into this camp but I think there are times where churches may decide to employ people to actually perform ministry. Seems to me, that in making his point that we need paid people to cultivate environments where ministry will emerge (something I agree with) he has become too descriptive as to the method. However, his point is well made. Churches that can afford and wish to employ staff should focus on employing people who will facilitate, encourage and nurture people for the mission.
Easum lists some common staffing mistakes - here are the ones that grabbed me:
“Hiring a paid servant even when in doubt because the job needs filling. It is better to be without staff than to hire or appoint someone whom you will will have to let go in a short time.” (p127)
“Hiring someone on your staff that is a mission rather than on the mission” (p127)
April 18th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
In all of my ministry some of the most bruised and battered people have been ‘the servants of the church”. Frankly churches and ministers have few ideas on what it means to be an “employer”. Given the US record on labour relations,seems logical for them to be using concepts like “paid servants”. Doesnt say much to me Phil, in fact keep away from any American who prattles on about masters and servants.
April 19th, 2006 at 10:35 am
“3. The shift from the lead pastor seeing the entire congregation as her or his flock to seeing a few key staff positions as his or her flock.”
Sounds like most big churches to me, and exactly the reason I don’t like them - I like being in small churches where everyone knows each other.
““1. The shift from professional paid staff who direct volunteers in carrying our programs to paid servants who equip and coach unpaid servants to carry out most of the pastoral responsibilities.
2. The shift from using all paid staff to using combinations of paid and unpaid servants to fill a role or using unpaid servants in the place of paid staff”
Sounds nice in theory, but I think this already happens, and is a key cause of burn-out!!
“4. The shift from the charasimatic, lone-ranger type of leadership to more of a team-based approach to ministry.” (p117-118)”
As above…as one of the ‘unpaid leaders’, who works full-time, often run services, and then is expected to pack up and lock-up while the paid staff go home, I can see flaws in this too! I know lots of paid church staff put in more time than they’re paid for - but it’s their community too, and if those of us that worked elsewhere added up our time spent in paid employment and our time spent in unpaid church employment, I still suspect we’d be the ones working longer hours…!!
Not totally dissing Easum’s approach…I just think it’s very, very simplistic…
Clearly I’ve been hanging out with way too many burnt-out unpaid people recently.
April 20th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Bec, do you ever wonder what it is that makes the paid staff worthy of their hire and the unpaid staff worthy of burn-out? … Of course, the unpaid staff get to work 60 hr weeks so the paid staff can drink coffee and discuss their vision for their ministry for 30 grueling hrs per week. Silly me, all makes sense once u get it in proper focus!
April 21st, 2006 at 8:52 am
Gee which paid ministry position works 30 hours per week? Maybe I could apply.
April 21st, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Not in your life … its mine mine mine! In love of course!