by Bob Cornwall
Given that many congregations can’t afford a full-time, seminary-trained pastor, and many seminaries are struggling to survive, it seems a good time to ask: what does it take to be a good minister? Does it require a seminary degree?
Our answers might reflect concerns about how we should allocate scarce resources, or offer ideas about the purpose of pastoral ministry. At any rate, it’s important to recognize that many congregations will simply call the best pastor they can afford, even if they have to go outside the normal search/call protocols.
The above concerns were all part of the mix in an interesting conversation at this summer’s Disciples of Christ General Assembly. A newly revised policy on ministry required our assent—the first in 38 years. Back then it was assumed that one needed a M.Div. degree from an accredited seminary (preferably a denominationally related one) to be ordained. This assumption hasn’t changed, but the reality has: a lot fewer congregations can afford authorized ministers, and many are calling licensed ministers instead.
Many of these ministers serve bi-vocationally, giving sacrificially of their time to congregations. But while some have followed rigorous courses of study (often something equivalent to undergraduate preparation), there are no overall standards—or there were not until the General Assembly approved the new policy, after some sharp debate.
One change is that the old process of licensure will be replaced by an order of “commissioned minister,” which will have specific educational requirements. The plan also provides for an alternative apprenticeship path to ordination, to accommodate candidates for whom it’s difficult, for financial or family reasons, to relocate to a traditional seminary setting. Some of my seminary-trained colleagues complained that such a path undermineds the value of their degrees, while others responded that seminary simply isn’t a cost-effective means of providing for a well-equipped corps of leaders for the future church. (As for me, I loved seminary and can’t see myself in ministry without that education—although I went to seminary to be a professor, not a pastor.)
Jesus was relatively uneducated, as were most of his disciples and many of the great saints of history. In certain pockets of the church, a growing number of voices suggest that a seminary education is not only unnecessary but even detrimental to effective ministry. Just to make sure we get the message, a shelf-load of books detail all the important things that a minister won’t learn in seminary.
What they neglect to mention is that courses in Bible, theology and church history (my specialty) are very important, if not essential, to effective ministry. It’s upon these courses that we build our understanding of the practical sides of ministry.
As finances become tighter and churches face choices as to whether they can afford a “properly trained pastor,” we have to ask what it takes to be a good pastor. Is it education, or is it something else? Or does a good pastor need equal parts education and things like character, gifts and calling?
Bob Cornwall is pastor of Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) of Troy, Michigan, and editor of Sharing the Practice (Academy of Parish Clergy). He blogs at Ponderings on a Faith Journey, part of the CCblogs network.
August 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
As a licensed minister who has worked very hard to pull our church from the brink of collapse to renewed success, I'm not happy to be considered the "affordable" minister that churches now "settle" for.
Why is it a licensed minister can succeed where so many "properly trained" ministers have not? Will somebody PLEASE define ministerial success, and do an actual performance comparison of "ordained" vs. "licensed" ministers? I think you'll be surprised by the result.
All I know is that if church growth and survival aren't counted as success measures, they certainly should be. Ask anyone who sadly watched as their church closed its doors for the last time.
Name withheld for obvious reasons.
Since so many of the "officially" ordained and educated ministers have turned the Christian Faith into a self-help, life enrichment program there is good evidence that education does not assure us that the gospel will be shared through seminary training. But the lack of education does not promises us that the uneducated will be as wise as Jesus. Seems to me that there is no sure fire way to insure good ministry.
As a "traditional" seminary student I was always amazed at the commitment demonstrated by fellow "non-traditional" students who felt called to ministry later in life. To complete a seminary degree they were willing to make much greater sacrifices than I, like uprooting their families and leaving well-paying secular jobs. At the same time, observing their struggle helped me recognize the need for other opportunities for education, i.e. in-service training, online classes, etc.
Needless to say, I am convinced of a minister's need for education. And with the wide array of opportunities available I'm hard pressed to see any legitimate reason why a minister should not be expected and required to pursue it. A seminary professor really drove this point home by making the following comparison: "We require much of the doctors who take care of our bodies. Yet we tend to require so little of the pastors who take care of our souls."
Is this true: "Jesus was relatively uneducated, as were most of his disciples and many of the great saints of history." Jesus is called "rabbi", knows his Scripture sufficiently to find a different place in the scroll than the lectionary reading, and is asked to read in the synagogue. Hmmm. I'm not saying he was less educated nor more; the evidence is ambiguous.
And many saints of the Church were well educated: Paul, Chrysostom; the Reformers; to name some.
The 'success' of a minister is not just education determined but also spirituality and personal functioning dependent.
There are horror stories of both well-educated and non-educated ministers; and there are success stories of those two groups. As an Intentional Interim I follow both!!
If I had my choice I'd prefer seminary educated and well-mentored ministers - the latter being of utmost importance.
Ron Cook
suddenly everyone is an expert on ministry (MADE IN THE USA!)
Come on, the church has been around for too long to have shallow definitions by a few fly-by-night experts to have the final say.
Concerns about preparation for ministry leadership abound in all churches, partly because the acknowledged (and often undefined) roles of minister are shifting. Today the "bottom line" is one principal determinate (and less than full-time ministry is accepted) because congregations are looking first at how much they can afford before they explore the kind/style of leader they want.
And a second source of the shift in roles lies in the unwillingness of congregations to accept a "leadership" role from ministry personnel--no longer is the minister an authority figure, but instead, an employee whose task is to please those who pay the bills, rather than present the (sometimes) uncomfortable challenges of the Gospel to somewhat too comfortable church-goers.
I believe the issue is less about what preparation is needed than it is about whether or not congregations will accept leadership from someone, seminary-trained or not.
Bob Wallace,
Coaldale & Raymond (Alberta) Congregations,
The United Church of Canada
One wonders why this is such an annoyingly intriguing, perhaps demoralizing, issue only in the left-over church of the once triumphant European Christendom! Certainly, the roles of the minister/pastor/priest need redefining and hopefully rediscovering of new areas of meaningful engagement.In our consumerist day and age, those who 'pay the bills' appear more vocal, demanding and disillusioned. I am re-reading the book "Does God Need the Church?" - I don't agree with the author's premises and conclusions. Let me pose:Do people need the church? How about the clergy? I am not sure if I need the church the way it has disfigured over the past decades! I attended three depressing worship services ( no people, no money, no children, no youth! )during my holiday - last Sunday was good and I sent a note of encouragement to the minister as soon as I got home. He thanked me for the encouragement.
I think there is a necessary transition which a new minister must go through, from that of being the new guy, the paid professional, to the pastor, the one in whom the people naturally place their trust. In the hiring process and during the period of introduction the people who pay the bills are constantly evaluating the minister and examining the leadership style.
While it may appear as if they will not accept ministerial leadership, I think what is happening is better understood as the process of getting to know each other, and learning to trust abilities of the new minister before pastoral authority is accorded. It has to be earned, if not, eventually either the people won't come or they will drive the minster out.
As for what makes for a good, pastor, the question may be considered in two parts: what qualities make for an attractive pastoral candidate? and what qualities assure a long lasting and effective ministry?
Marcus Borg does a convincing job in a couple of his books presenting the perspective that Jesus was pretty well educated.
Who is a pastor? Yes, the paradigm is shifting. The pastor has to "win" people's trust and learn to be an "effective" leader. Still, the paradigm is shifting. Who is the pastor? What is the church? What is a "successful" church? Who is a "successful" pastor? Church growth? Maybe. That's what everybody is looking at including the "professional" clergy. But remember the goat from the sheep, and the Christ living in the marginalized. Our standard of "success" may not be the "success" in Christ. So, what does it require to be a pastor? Education. Experience. Vocational (not career) calling. All of the above. But most importantly is the constant, day-to-day self-examination of am I doing what I am called to do?
I had the benefit of the 'traditional' seminary education spread among several denominational schools in Hyde Park, Chicago; and more recently I participated in a 'lay academy' model of pastors' training in rural Illinois as part of being called to work in a UCC congregation. (I am ordained PCUSA and needed a primer on UCC polity and history).
While I found benefits in the traditional residential training (primarily the friendships with classmates who are now colleagues and with whom we can figure out first-call issues together ecumenically); I really am excited about the possibilities for 'lay academy' training of pastors. This model gathers 'students' from a geographical region who would find it tough to commute to a traditional seminary. Rather than weekly classes, courses in Bible, theology, history, and ministry are taught in intensive-retreat format [these are often at a Bible camp or other convenient and conducive setting]. Assignments are done between retreats via internet or mailed-in papers.
This isn't so different from the educational process to earn a Doctor of Ministry (D. Min.) degree; and I think it also lends an extra sense of accountability to and relationality with the sending community of congregations involved--something that can often break down when sending a traditional student halfway across the country to a seminary, not to be seen again for years. I would also affirm what's been said by others here about the mentoring for ministry--the 'field work' being so essential for applying any education to real live groups of people. I only received urban training in my traditional field education; most of my new pastor colleagues would prefer to stay close to the city into which they have moved and in which they've been trained. The lay academy model provides a ready supply of pastors who are familiar with and ready to serve their contexts--even if they didn't go back to the exact same congregation as they are from.
In short, I'm saying that there is middle ground between traditional education and no education for ministry, and that middle ground is rich with possibilities for a thriving church.
I think some sort of theological training is necessary. Each church has its own cherished traditions, history of biblical interpreation and symbols that point them to God. As time marches on, I do think the traditional "Andover Newton" model of seminary education has grown too expensive and impractical when it comes to training clergy. At one time [way back!] pastors were trained as apprentices. Today, I am interested to see where this whole online or virtual education trend is headed? Without any type of theological education background, churches are vulnerable to any local "Billy-Bob" who imitates the latest craze on TV evangelists or has a favorite set of proof texts to use as churh leaders. This is why the creeds and confessions of the church were created in the first few centuries.
An important factor in an institutional minister/pastor is accountability beyond the congregation served. The congregation would benefit from knowing the minister/pastor has met some objective standard, and that the minister/pastor is supervised/mentored by an external party. Remember Jim Jones...
The most basic ingredient to a good pastor's competency is a sense of calling. That awareness sustains and empowers. Also, a growing spirituality nurtured by the daily office is central. Beyond that, some form of education, espcially in contexts with educated persons, is crucial. Ideally, that three-year seminary community experience seems foundational, but that's less and less possible now. Failing that, some theologial and pastoral ministry training is essential.
I attended the session of the Disciples' general assembly when the ministry resolution was discussed and approved, but I don't recall the sharp debate mentioned in this article. What I remember is my surprise at such little opposition to changes that will have significant implications. Besides, we are too anxiously nice to have sharp debate about anything.
I find the comment 'there are no overall standards—or there were not until the General Assembly approved the new policy' to be uninformed and naive. It's helpful that this document, which I would gladly vote against again, lists the areas of competency, but this will be implemented in a dramatically uneven way among our regions. That matters even more now that search and call is open to just about everyone. Each region will define competency differently and provide varying levels of education and experience requirements, which means that regional ministers and congregations will be receiving search and call profiles on people with little certainty or clarity about how to measure their preparation for ministry.
Post a Comment
We don't currently require registration, but we do prefer that you include your name. If you don't have any of the login types listed in the pulldown menu, select "Name/URL"--the URL field is optional, so leave it blank if you don't want to hyperlink your name to another site.