Adversarial Responses - Lay People and Clergy

[Kevin Bowser]

And I am not surprised that you are surprised.

That was my response in a recent discussion on how to account for a pastor's vacation time when time is taken for missions projects and other similar activities. That was a very interesting thread. Some of the comments from the lay people seemingly were not received with a welcoming tone by some pastors. And the same was seemingly true of how the lay people welcomed some of the pastors words. (I include myself in that crowd.)

One of the responders is a pastor who I know and respect a great deal. In fact, I consider him a real friend. He was a great help and support to me while I was at ENC many years ago. (In fact, I borrowed his car to take my girlfriend out to dinner in order for me to propose to her! Of course I had to fix a flat tire so that I could borrow the car, but that's another story!) He seemed to be surprised by some of the tenor and tone of the discussions as it marked a visible line between laymen and clergy in terms of how they think and how they view things.

I am not really surprised by how these discussions progress. In my relatively short time on NazNet I have observed a very defineable line of thinking between the two groups. I am not saying that what is observable is a "bad" thing. It may just be a thing.

It just seems these kinds of discussions (and some of the underlying emotions) often are quite surprising to pastors.

Why do you suppose that is?

I have some ideas that I am willing to share.

But, I'll sit back for a while and listen to see what some of you all have to say.

I said that this question may even be worthy of starting a new thread, and indeed it has! :basic07

[Jon Twitchell]

I am not prepared to propose an answer to your question(s).

I just have more questions to ask... :)

Do lay-people hire a pastor to do a job and complete a job description? Or, do they see themselves as supporting the pastor as a missionary who is responding to God's calling?

(Or, probably true...a bit of both?)

However, I wonder if the variety of responses to that question becomes one possible cause for the mentioned adversarial tone.

[Bob Evans]

This entire discussion is disturbing to me and reminds my why the Lord will have to call me very loudly back into perish ministry.

Those who want to charge the pastors vacation time for mission trips are reducing the ministry to a hired machine operator with manufactoring quotas. And if he is away from his machine it should cost him his vacation time because after all no parts are being made.

The reality of ministry is that much of ministry is unmeasurable. And if a pastor sets an example of a missionary spirit, provides leadership, and comes home with a greater vision for ministry then even though its in Mexico in February its work.

I think I think that its this attitude causes perish ministers to consider other forms of ministry outside the church.

[Mike Schutz]

Okay Kevin, you goaded me in, just like in all our Bible studies back at ENC.

Let's see, so far we have a thread started by my good friend Kevin (ENC in the 1980s), and responded to by another good friend Jon (ENC in the 1990s), who is a pastor, followed by my former college roommate and friend Bob (ENC in the 1970s), who used to be a pastor and now is serving in a vital, full-time ministry. And I get paid each week to be a pastor. So Kevin, that makes three pastoral types to your one lay person. I know enough about the way you think to know that you would consider those odds just about even. :rolleyes:

I also know that each of you know way too much about me. So I better behave on NazNet or you will reveal some of the deep, dark secrets of my past - and you probably have pictures ;)

Since you quoted me to start the thread, let me explain my statement.
I am not surprised that some pastors and some laypersons approach the same situation from different perspectives, and don't understand each other. We do come from differing perspectives.

I do not expect lay persons, even lay leaders, in our church to spend as much time thinking about the church as I do. While they each have a ministry within the church, it does not take up as much of their time and their talents as my ministry takes up of mine. That is part of the difference, but not all. Most have a full-time job, whether outside or inside the home, and they have to give a lot of time to that. Some do it just for a pay check, but many also work because it fulfills them and they find pleasure and satisfaction in it. For some, their church ministry allows them to do something they enjoy that they cannot do at work - like the business woman who teaches children's Sunday school. For others, they bring their own unique skill set from work to church - like the banker who serves as chairman of the Finance Committee or the accountant who is the church treasurer. But while they give 1, 2, 5 or sometimes 10 hours each week to church - I give at least 60. And while I cannot imagine what it is like to do everyday what they do, most of them only know a small amount of what I do each day.

I remember when I first became pastor, after over 20 years at ENC. I wanted the folks to think of me as a fellow pilgrim, so I encouraged them to call me Mike - rather than "Pastor" or "Rev." The response to this broke along generational lines. The older folks were not comfortable with it at all, while those under 40 just started calling me Mike. (The one group that didn't fit were those with a Roman Catholic background - no matter their age, they were uncomfortable calling me by my first name alone.) I think I think that my point is, that lay persons have as many different expectations for their pastor (and their pastor's spouse) as there are different people in the church.

Yes, it is true that I occasionally get frustrated with the folks in the pew. But its not because they don't do enough around the church or spend too many weekends at the cabin in the mountains or don't pay their tithe. (Okay, I lied about that last one.) My frustration is similar to what we feel when our best friend goes back into an unhealthy relationship. We want to scream "Don't you know that you are better than that. You don't need this. It is only hurting you!" But I don't scream - or at least I try not to. Instead, I try my best to show love and grace, and be there for them. And wow do I appreciate those who have made seeking God a priority in their lives! And wow am I excited when a few folks catch God's heart for reaching those who don't know what love is! And wow am I thrilled when marriages and families are set free by God's amazing grace. And I know for sure that most of the vital, real, life-changing ministry in our community happens because God uses consecrated lay persons. My job is to love, encourage, challenge, support, and proclaim that what is in front of us is not all there is.

So, I am not surprised that lay persons and pastors see things from a different perspective. That's okay. I just hope that they give me the benefit of the doubt - that when I mess up, and it's a lot - that they know I didn't do it on purpose and I'll try harder next time. And I hope they will be patient with me.

But you see, I am blessed with a wonderful group of folks in my church, and an amazing church board. I am truly blessed.

Grace and peace,
Mike

[Billie Goodson]

Interesting topic -- and very interesting to see where it goes. I think there is most assuredly different perspectives from the two groups. Often not quite appreciative of the other group, and sometimes not wrong. However, just an observation. Mike posted an interesting note:

Okay Kevin, you goaded me in, just like in all our Bible studies back at ENC.

I do not expect lay persons, even lay leaders, in our church to spend as much time thinking about the church as I do. While they each have a ministry within the church, it does not take up as much of their time and their talents as my ministry takes up of mine. That is part of the difference, but not all. Most have a full-time job, whether outside or inside the home, and they have to give a lot of time to that. Some do it just for a pay check, but many also work because it fulfills them and they find pleasure and satisfaction in it. For some, their church ministry allows them to do something they enjoy that they cannot do at work - like the business woman who teaches children's Sunday school. For others, they bring their own unique skill set from work to church - like the banker who serves as chairman of the Finance Committee or the accountant who is the church treasurer. But while they give 1, 2, 5 or sometimes 10 hours each week to church - I give at least 60.

I will only pick on Mike's math a little -- as acknowledged in the post, some laypersons have secular jobs that require 40 hours (some even more...it is not unusual for me to record 45+ hours, many of them out of town) per week. Then, as Mike pointed out, they give 1, 2, 5 or 10 hours in a ministry position. Well, if a layman does 40 in his secular position, and 10 in their ministry -- they get to 50 hours. Often divided and not along the same lines, so they spend additional time spinning up and down on their tasks, which physically and psychologically can take the toll of even more hours.

I really get this opinion from my national guard days. When the full time staff at the unit would wonder about my dedication if I didn't feel like driving 1 hour to the unit, and 1 1/2 hour home afterward to go to a 2 hour meeting to "plan" things. Then they would get upset that I could only be at the meeting if it started after 6pm because I had to wait until I got off work to make the hour trip. They wanted to hurry and get home to their family, they claimed.. :basic04

Anyway -- I sometimes envy our pastoral staff with the flexibility of their "job" at the church. They get to do something they love, are respected in their congregation and usually community, and can have almost singular focus. Then, I am reminded of all of the negatives -- like having to put up with us difficult lay men, having to drive to a house to console a next of kin, having to attempt to herd a bunch of goats in essence -- often for crummy pay, less than exemplary benefits, and sometimes at the whim of bipolar boards...and I am thankful that God calls men and women of such conviction and ability to shepherd his children......

Then, there are the bi-vocational pastors.....

And, don't even get me started on health insurance for our pastoral staff.....You want to ask me the greatest shame in our church today.......

[Mike Schutz]

Greetings!
I totally agree with Billie's challenge of my "math." (Sorry, I am not yet totally competent in even the basics of posting - and I was not successful in getting the "quote" to work.) I am amazed at the amount of time and energy that our key lay persons have for the ministry of the church. I was simply trying to point out that the time they focus on the ministry of the church cannot be as much as mine.

We have seen too many pastors AND lay persons lose their families because of putting too much time into the work of the church and not enough on their families. In fact, some lay persons consider it a matter of pride that "When we built this building 40 years ago, I was here every night for months - from as soon as I got off work until 11pm or later." Unfortunately, that is often followed by a statement expecting the current generation of young parents to do the same for our next building project. That is when I have to step in and say that such a schedule is simply inappropriate today, and I'm not sure it was appropriate 40 years ago.

Grace and peace,
Mike

[Dave McClung]

That was my response in a recent discussion on how to account for a pastor's vacation time when time is taken for missions projects and other similar activities. That was a very interesting thread. Some of the comments from the lay people seemingly were not received with a welcoming tone by some pastors. And the same was seemingly true of how the lay people welcomed some of the pastors words. (I include myself in that crowd.)

One of the responders is a pastor who I know and respect a great deal. In fact, I consider him a real friend. He was a great help and support to me while I was at ENC many years ago. (In fact, I borrowed his car to take my girlfriend out to dinner in order for me to propose to her! Of course I had to fix a flat tire so that I could borrow the car, but that's another story!) He seemed to be surprised by some of the tenor and tone of the discussions as it marked a visible line between laymen and clergy in terms of how they think and how they view things.

I am not really surprised by how these discussions progress. In my relatively short time on NazNet I have observed a very defineable line of thinking between the two groups. I am not saying that what is observable is a "bad" thing. It may just be a thing.

It just seems these kinds of discussions (and some of the underlying emotions) often are quite surprising to pastors.

Why do you suppose that is?

I have some ideas that I am willing to share.

But, I'll sit back for a while and listen to see what some of you all have to say.

I said that this question may even be worthy of starting a new thread, and indeed it has! :basic07

I would suggest that there are at least two different areas of difference. I accept that there are differences between clergy and laity, but I think the greater difference is between "professional" and those who punch a clock.

It has been my observation that when it comes to church policies that deal with clergy duties and pay it is the folks who punch a clock for a living that have the most problem with the amount of flexibility given to a pastor. Many of them want the pastor's employment agreement to mirror their own.

[Hans Deventer]

My job is to love, encourage, challenge, support, and proclaim that what is in front of us is not all there is.

I really like that job description. (And I'm a layman)

Just one remark, Mike. The number of hours one puts into church do not necessarily equal the commitment, nor the feeling of involvement. One can be a pastor "going through the motions" and one can be a very involved and active layman and the difference is huge, but it goes the other way around. There are many laypeople for whom the church is their life, though they have to make there living elsewhere. Same goes for some bivocational pastors as well, BTW.

But whatever the case, I have come to realize that expectations towards pastors differ immensely, which means that a pastor can never meet all of those (nor should (s)he try). This means that a clearly communicated agreement on expectations between church board and pastor is essential for a healthy pastoral relationship. Some church members might not agree with those goals and expectations, but then they have a problem with the church board, not with the pastor.

[Hans Deventer]

Do lay-people hire a pastor to do a job and complete a job description? Or, do they see themselves as supporting the pastor as a missionary who is responding to God's calling?

The first one. And that job description would be to help us become what we are: the church, the body of Christ in this world. And I would presume the pastor to be called by God and the local church to that job description.

Now for the record, this is of course only the reaction of one layman.

[Mark Doble]

Maybe Pastors take things to seriously to heart or as a personal attack when it is just the nature of doing business?

Ducking under the table...

[Billie Goodson]

I would suggest that there are at least two different areas of difference. I accept that there are differences between clergy and laity, but I think the greater difference is between "professional" and those who punch a clock.






Interesting point Dave -- and very apropos to the discussion. I think you nailed it on the head for many. I come from a military background -- and now am a "salaried professional." I pretty much expect that my pastor is a 24/7 person and is there for whenever he is needed. If I need him at 3am, and he spent 8 hours at the hospital yesterday with a family of a dying saint, then preached a sermon for mid-week, then spent some time counseling a wayward sheep -- got to bed at 11, was awakened at 1145pm to go to an accident scene -- then managed to crawl back in to bed at 0244, barely 15 minutes before my life crisis -- I expect him to drop everything (sleep in this circumstance) and be there for me. And, you know what -- he is. He is my pastor, not 8 hours a day, not 5 days a week. He is my pastor, just like God is my God.

Just like if my job calls me at 0130 and says a server went down in some forsaken place -- at some forsaken hour. That is my job and I do it. That goes back to my military time -- mission first.

Jesus didn't get down from the cross at the end of his shift. Well, ok, I guess he did...but, only because the job was finished! I know, because he said so.

[Hans Deventer]

Jesus didn't get down from the cross at the end of his shift.

Neither did He jump up at any time of day or at any request. And He still does not. Believing and waiting are inseparable.

I'm not a pastor but I get real scared from this description. It's great that the pastor who has to live up to those expectations has eternal life, for his people don't seem to allow him or her much life on this earth.

And for the record, I am responsible for some servers as well. And if needs be, I'll be there. But if that would happen with any kind of regularity, I'd be heading for another job, even if it would pay less. I'm not on a 24/7 shift, at least, I don't see anything in my salary that would resemble such a labour agreement.

If I have learned anything this past year, it is the value of spending time with my loved ones, especially my wife. I'm not going to let a 24/7 job get in between my wife and me.

[Billie Goodson]

Could not agree with you more Hans. I hope you sensed that much of what I said was somewhat in jest. I do believe that all of those are some peoples expectations (even at secular work).

I guess I should point out that I believe many pastors would perform those duties not because it is their job -- but their calling. They want to be there in all of those times. I have a ton of respect for pastoral staff and the demands that we as laymen sometimes place on them. I believe they (pastors) do their job because they feel it serves a higher purpose. You and I caring for a server sometimes fits the same description in some way. I work on systems that can have very harmful effects if they are not there to support people. So, mission first. Pastors are kind of like that.

I was attempting to point out that I agreed with Dave -- if you take the salaried/hourly discussion to certain extents. As a salaried person, I am expected to be there whenever, sometimes paid or not. It is an expectation of my job -- and I tend to think of my pastor that way. All that being said, if the pastor had a day like I was describing, I would expect him to in recovery at home (or the golf course) to make up for those "extra hours." My view is the pastor is there when needed, not 8-4. And, if not needed 8-4, make up for some of those extra hours. It needs to be a partnership. Please don't take away the opinion that I think a pastor should work himself to exhaustion -- and the church should not expect it.

[Mike Schutz]

Greetings!

I am a Christian 24/7, as I am a pastor 24/7, and a father 24/7 and a husband 24/7. However, Jesus was not available to everyone all the time. He went alone to pray - and as we can see in Scripture, this frustrated folks who wanted more of him.

If I am going to be effective when I am with people, then I need time to pray and study. And I need time with my accountability and support group of other pastors. And being an introvert, I also need time when I am ALONE.

If I am going to stand in front of my congregation and tell adults - especially men - that they need to spend time in prayer, that they need to spend time with their kids, and with their spouses, and with their friends, I cannot be a hypocrite and not do the same myself. (Somewhere in the background my wife is saying - yeah Mike, nice talk. Now how about the walk.) :fav18

Grace and peace,
Mike

[Billie Goodson]

Mike, I hope my response to Hans clarified some of what I meant. I am debating removing my post -- it seems to be stirring some adversarial responses that are not consistent with the intent of my post. I guess my intent got lost.

And, for the record, I have never called my pastor at 3am. Luckily, I have a direct line to God. I do bother Him at odd hours though, He has yet to complain.

Can I point out Mike, that when you raise the issue of being a husband/father 24/7, you are confirming my correlation? You are there when needed, right? When your child awakes at 3am and needs to be "tucked back in" you do it, right? And, yes, our wife, child, boss, job, all need to have a clear knowledge of our own personal requirements -- like private time. I would be like Hans if those demands begin to fall outside of my commitment, I would seek another job.

[Cindi Hammons]

I believe that there are many, many variables to explain why laymembers and clergy are at odds at times.

*Some clergy have a problem with laymembers because the clergy grew up in a parsonage and met some pretty self-centered laymembers during their lifetimes...or have heard the plethora of laymember horror stories from colleagues. (Don't deny it, it's true...even here on NazNet, I've heard them.)

*Some of those laymembers may feel that the clergy doesn't have a grasp on what their "real" life is like, and many clergy have never held a "real" job outside of the church...and have heard the plethora of clergy horror stories from other laymen. (Don't deny it, it's true...even here on NazNet, I've heard them.)

*Some laymembers have had pastors who took advantage of the church and were gone at every possible time...which makes them suspicious of the rest of them.

*Some laymembers have had clergy who were in it for the profession and not the calling.

*Some clergy have been victims of laymembers who are "out to get" them regardless of what they do.

I believe that both clergy and laymembers are victims of a small minority that make it difficult for everyone else.

You know, I could go on and on and on with reasons why many clergy and laymembers don't understand each other...and it is unfortunate, but a fact of life. The only answer I know is to have good, clear and open communication where neither party is fearful. So many times good communication could clear up the "issue" before hard feelings are formed.

Just my 2 cents worth on a subject I have tried to stay out of. :)

[Mike Schutz]

[QUOTE=Billie Goodson;64146]Can I point out Mike, that when you raise the issue of being a husband/father 24/7, you are confirming my correlation? You are there when needed, right? When your child awakes at 3am and needs to be "tucked back in" you do it, right?

Billie,
Greetings!
While not really germain to this thread, it does bring up an interesting topic for conversation. I shocked a member of my congregation the other day when I told him that it is important for parents to not ALWAYS be available for our kids every SINGLE time they have an event, a game, etc. While not wanting to stretch this too far, sometimes we can send the signal to our kids that our world revolves around them, and therefore, the entire world revolves around them. We have seen this go to the extreme with "helicopter" parents, who are always hovering around every aspect of their child's life. It has gone so far that, as reported in the Boston Globe several weeks ago, parents of college students are attending Job Fairs for their college kids, handing out resumes for them. :eek:
We would like to be "perfect" parents, when that is not possible. The goal is being "good enough" parents, a term with rather interesting meaning from the "object relations" stream of developmental psychology. (Sorry. You can take the college profesor out of the clasroom, but ...)
But since we are talking about the differing expectations of pastors and laity, perhaps I should stop here. If any members of my congregation log onto NazNet, they may wonder why I have so much time to post:rolleyes:
Grace and peace,
Mike

[Billie Goodson]

Mike, I will quote myself here, which is something that I would normally not do:

You are there when needed, right?

What you provided was a good post on being able to determine when you are needed. The person that cannot determine the difference between need and desire would have more problems than you or I can address on this forum.

Since my children were involved in sports, I would pretty adamantly disagree with you in respect to not feeling I need to be at every game of my child. It was/is very critical that I be at every event of my child that is appropriate. Career fairs are not events for children. Sorry, my goal was to be the "perfect parent." I will not venture what your description of the "perfect parent" is, but, in my experience, it was in preparing my child for successful transition through the stages of growth/maturity culminating in their achieving adulthood as a balanced, responsible person. That being said, I was not at every event of my children, it did not diminish my desire to be there.

[Kevin Bowser]

I sat back and have been "enjoying" the thread so far. But, it is a little off of what I tried to make as the topic. I accept that there are differences in expectations and differences in responses to stimuli (see Mike, I was paying attention in class at ENC!) . And many of those arise out of our different experiences. But that was not the thrust of my post.

The thrust of the post was/is that these differences are often adversarial and seemingly surprising to both sides.
It has been my observation that when it comes to church policies that deal with clergy duties and pay it is the folks who punch a clock for a living that have the most problem with the amount of flexibility given to a pastor. Many of them want the pastor's employment agreement to mirror their own.
And I don't think necessarily that these break down along white collar vs. blue collar lines as you may be indicating Dave.

Again, I am looking for a reason why this is so surprising. Is it as Hans and others have indicated due to a lack of open communication between the two camps? Is there a basic distrust as Cindi and others have pointed out? (Not that Cindi is distrusting of her pastor. She is just the one who verbalized it.)

But you see emotions running fairly high on this as demonstrated by Bob Evans. It saddens me to see his post here on this thread and on the "Vacation time" thread. I don't know Bob, but I hurt for him as his ministry experience must not have been altoghether a positive one. And at the same time I am very happy for Mike Schutz who is apparently experiencing a very positive pastoral experience.

But Mike points out the demographics in his post that at the time of his posting were 3 to 1, pastor types to laymen types. So, clearly this is a hot topic, or a sensitive topic, among pastors as well as laymen.

[Bob Evans]

Kevin

I work at a resue mission as a chaplin and a counselor. I have been doing so for seven years. I sought the job because I needed to move from my church and my wife had some vocational obligations she had to fulfill that would have been prohibitivly expensive for me not to have her fulfill.

I wasen't sure about the work when I first got the job. However, looking back on my time here I can see the hand of God throughout the experience. I can't imagine doing anything else for my life. So if the Lord calls he will have to call loudly.

Looking back on my time in persih ministry communication and teaching were never my problem. I did that and can still do that well even now after 7 years. I always got in trouble in the area of outside the pulpit expectations.
I pastored church with several wonderful Godly hourly working men whose view of anything paid for involved tasks and hourly wages. I worked very hard to cast vision, lead by example, and train others for the task of ministry with some success. But when the measurable numbers[offerings, attendence, conversions etc.,] would remain stagnet or go down it raised questions from the board about how I was spending my time. I never quite figured out a way to lead people through those times and consequently my productivity was questioned. And I know all the scriptural and cool leadership buzz phrases at this point. However, I could never quite package it in such a way that my church didn't think the losses were my fault.

For the last seven years I have attended a church with very strong lay leadership. My pastor really is a teaching and vision casting pastor. And were I to pastor a perish again I would handle the job from this perspective from day one. And that may indeed happen some day.

But in the mean time I have 18 guys in various stage of drug and alcohol recovery that seek and follow my guidience in rentering the regular flow as drug and alcohol free followers of Christ. Unless the Lord calls loudly I am going to stay where I am.

I loved the pastorite. But this is where I am best gifted and here I will stay unless the lord calls loudly.

[Billy Cox]

Although I did not post on the mission trip/vacation thread, I sometimes find myself in an adversarial frame of mind when it comes to lay/clergy issues.

I have a seminary background and I have done some time as an associate pastor. I figure that I have just enough clergy experience to know all of the pain of being in ministry and none of the joy. I am now a layperson by choice.

I am still a bit angry at how I was treated by the senior pastor at the church where I was an associate. Suffice to say that clergy arrogance is one of my buttons, and it's a hair trigger at times.

I still tend to see things more from a clergy perspective...except when someone in the clergy pins all of the shortcomings of the church on the lazy laypeople.

[Dave McClung]

Kevin

I have been giving this tread some thought and have concluded that the premise really isn't correct. You have implied that the difference between clergy and laity are more than differences between two members of the clergy and two members of the laity. I don't accept that as a given.

I have observed here on NazNet and in my life in general that no two people are alike. There are "adversarial" situations anytime there are discussions. It makes no difference if the discussion is between laity and clergy or not.

Here on NazNet, I would observe that when I have had to intervene in adversarial situations it has been clergy vs clergy and laity vs laity. It has been years since I have had to intervene in a situation that involved clergy vs laity.

[Jim Franklin]

Seems I remember a scriptual discription between a hireling and a shepherd. Many times my dad continued to shepherd the flock when the salary was not available. One of his last pastorates was supposed to include a salary of $25/week in 1950-51 but the offerings did not amount to that much so he got whatever came in they offering which averaged about $7.50/week. The climate there was bad for my mother's health so we were there only 7 months but one of the members took it upon themselves and out of their own pockets sent us enough to total a sum which produced a salary of $12.50/week for the time we were there. What carried us through was the fact that my older half brother had been killed in World War II and my dad who was supposed to have had the chance to choose between an out right insurance payoff of $10,000 or $66/month for the rest of his life got just the monthly amount.

[Kevin Bowser]

Kevin

I have been giving this tread some thought and have concluded that the premise really isn't correct. You have implied that the difference between clergy and laity are more than differences between two members of the clergy and two members of the laity. I don't accept that as a given.

I have observed here on NazNet and in my life in general that no two people are alike. There are "adversarial" situations anytime there are discussions. It makes no difference if the discussion is between laity and clergy or not.

Here on NazNet, I would observe that when I have had to intervene in adversarial situations it has been clergy vs clergy and laity vs laity. It has been years since I have had to intervene in a situation that involved clergy vs laity.




Dave,

I respect you and your position on NazNet. However, You seem to be implying that the recent exchange on the vacation thread and on this one as well is coincidental in nature that it divides along lay/clergy lines. As you say, "I don't accept that as a given" either. (Uh oh! This is a little adversarial :basic03 between us and we are indeed two laymen.)

My original intent of the thread was to explore some of the obvious and not so obvious differences between how the two groups view things. And in particular, take off a little on Mike Schutz's comment (that he later clarified) about an element of surprise in the fact that it seemed to be a little adversarial.

If nothing else, this post has demonstrated that there is a disconnect in thinking and communication between the two groups. We haven't really explored that the way that I would have hoped. But, perhaps this is not the time or place to do so.

Anyway, thanks for your perspective. And thanks to the rest of you who participated. Grace and peace to you all.

~Kevin

[John Kennedy]

You spoke aout the 'disconnect in thinking and communication between the two' (clergy and laity) and the failure to explore it. I think there are several reasons for this failure. Some so fervently wish it wasn't there, they are reluctant to explore it for fear they will have to learn to deal with it rather than see it miraculously eliminated. If you actually open your eyes and look around you might actually see that elephant over in that corner of the living room.

Faith is one thing - wishful thinking another. I've increasingly come to believe that many of the problems we encounter in churches stem from our failure to really take to heart Paul's statement about 'having this treasure in earthen vessels'.

People, no matter what kind of relationship with God they claim, tend to see things from where they are. The more perceptive ones will realize there are other perspectives and attempt to factor them in, but the basic default position is always 'from where I am, this is how I see it'.

This tendency to see things from where we are is a simple fact of life. I spent about half my teaching career as a teacher union officer and negotiator. I spent about the same amount of time as a member of church boards (thankfully at two differnt times - you can only take so much) in two different denominations. The similarities were striking. Conflict resolution, no matter how benign, was a big part of the job. Education, like church work, is a 'people business'.

I grew up in a parsonage and pastored for a few years while in college. I came to the conclusion that at least one of the differences between being a pastor and being president of the union was that, at least in the latter, no one professed to be free of carnality.

I think recognition of this disparity of perspective is, for pastors, a basic surivival skill. And, from a professional standpoint, the pastor probably has more at stake. After all, if conflict resolution isn't effective, the pastor will, most likely, be the one to go. As one of my father's parishioners was annoyingly fond of observing, "Preachers come and go, but the church stays right here."

Wilson Deaton posted an example of personnel policy that seems to clearly address the issue that started this thread in the first place. Time spent developing clear and concise policy statements and setting up conflict resolution procedures can be well worth the effort. It sure beats the alternative.

I spent about 7 years sitting across a negotiations table from a school superintendent I greatly respected. Over the years we came to agree that if administrators would stop expecting teachers to think like administrators and teachers would stop expecting administrators to think like teachers, both our jobs would be easier.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

How many people take it seriously what jobs are assigned to the pastor, and what are assigned to the laypeople? They expect the pastor to perform well in praying, fasting, studying the word, etc.--plus the "waiting of tables,", visiting the sick, caring for the widows, etc.--instead of doing what the word says for the minister to do. It is not in those exact words.

[Larry Wilson]

Sometimes the adversarial approach is due more to personalities in conflict rather than being lay vs clergy. As Dave said, a lot of the conflict is between clergy and between lay. In my first experience as a lay board member, I had to step between two other board members who I feared were going to come to blows. Later, I saw a campaign mounted to oust a very humble and Godly pastor who greatly influenced my life. It was very sad.

Perhaps I have an advantage in having served as a layman, and as a dual-professional pastor, as well as having grown up in a parsonage. I've seen the good, bad, and ugly from both perspectives. It's the old adage about being able to walk in another person's shoes. It may be more difficult, however, for laity to gain first hand experience of the pastor's role. I'm glad for the time I've spent in the pew -- and out of the pew!

That we should ever perceive ourselves to be on different sides or as adversaries is a tragedy. There is a difference in roles and in spiritual authority, but to adopt an us-them attitude is deadly.

Several analogies come to mind that help. That of a pastor as a playing coach is one. Same team, same purpose and goal -- different roles. Another is that of a marriage. We shouldn't be afraid of that. It is Biblical. Christ, as head of the church is bridegroom to the bride. He loved the church and gave His life for her, and pastors do the same, following Jesus' teaching and example of servant leadership. The church recognizes the spiritual authority of the servant-leader and both join together in a common vision and mission. There is a great deal of mutual submission, of forbearance, and an abundance of grace given and received in the process, if the church is to go forward, just as there is in a marriage. And, yes, it does take hard work sometimes -- but, it is eternally worth it!

These are ideals, I know, but they should be what guide us. I'm no stranger to conflict and even adversarial approaches, but in the church we must strive to resolve them in Christian love. Believe me, I know this doesn't always happen. Some things just seem utterly intractable.

I missed the thread on the vacation issue, but I surmise that it does illustrate some basic differences in viewing ministry in general and the pastorate in particular. Is there also a trust issue involved? Can we believe in each other?

[Hans Deventer]

That we should ever perceive ourselves to be on different sides or as adversaries is a tragedy. There is a difference in roles and in spiritual authority, but to adopt an us-them attitude is deadly.

But it should hardly be surprising. I agree with the difference in roles, but that is not the problem. A church board member has a different role than a Sunday School teacher. That is understood by all. Yet this is different. The Manual creates two different kind of people, laity and clergy, whatever their roles in a specific church. And we reap what we sow. They may be doing the same thing, and still, the great divide is there. A layman may be preaching, a pastor may be cleaning the toilets, but still, the gap remains.

Several analogies come to mind that help. That of a pastor as a playing coach is one. Same team, same purpose and goal -- different roles.

Perhaps the image of a non-playing coach should be better, in order to emphasize that you don't hire a pastor to BE the church.

Another is that of a marriage. We shouldn't be afraid of that. It is Biblical. Christ, as head of the church is bridegroom to the bride. He loved the church and gave His life for her, and pastors do the same, following Jesus' teaching and example of servant leadership.

I don't understand this one. I thought we ALL were to follow Christ's example. And He said:

8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

And in marriage, I am equal to my wife. I have no authority she does not have too.

I missed the thread on the vacation issue, but I surmise that it does illustrate some basic differences in viewing ministry in general and the pastorate in particular. Is there also a trust issue involved? Can we believe in each other?

I think things went wrong when authority was granted because of an office, in stead of spiritual gifts, and it went wrong even more when we created an office (priest or pastor) that all of a sudden should have all the gifts that even in a Old Testament were never combined. In the OT the priest, the prophet and the king were never the same, though of course sometimes either of these also had gifts that belonged to one of the other two. But their roles were never expected to cover all three offices.

We should return to assigning authority to spiritual gifts, and develop roles in the church accordingly. We would do well to listen to Paul:

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?

The questions are rhetoric of course, for their answer is obviously no.

[William Hunter]

Kevin, I think the disconnect may have something to do with some laypeople not fully understanding the difference between the cost of having a minister and the cost of ministry. Also, I have yet to meet, after more than 32 yrs. of ministry, a layperson who knew what a pastor's "job" is. I have met pastors who were not sure of this themselves. I have also seen where pastors have misused their congregation's trust and that ends up throwing a bad light on all of us in ministry. Also, as Dave as said, I'm not sure many of our laity know the difference between hourly wage jobs and the issues of being a "professional." I think this whole issue may have a variety of facets.

I have worked very hard at earning and keeping the turst of my cong. I bring everything I am thinking to my ch. bd. for discussion and clarification. The result has been a huge amount of trust in this pastor, which is a profoundly huge responsibility. As I read Acts 2, 6 and Eph. 4:11-16, I see a clear difference in the task of laypeople and pastors. And I believe we have missed it over the yrs. as a church because we have made the church clergy driven rather than lay driven. We need to return to the concepts of the Word here. If we did, we might just see a wonderful reaping of the harvest of souls we do not now see in too many congregations, no matter what the denomination.



Dave,

I respect you and your position on NazNet. However, You seem to be implying that the recent exchange on the vacation thread and on this one as well is coincidental in nature that it divides along lay/clergy lines. As you say, "I don't accept that as a given" either. (Uh oh! This is a little adversarial :basic03 between us and we are indeed two laymen.)

My original intent of the thread was to explore some of the obvious and not so obvious differences between how the two groups view things. And in particular, take off a little on Mike Schutz's comment (that he later clarified) about an element of surprise in the fact that it seemed to be a little adversarial.

If nothing else, this post has demonstrated that there is a disconnect in thinking and communication between the two groups. We haven't really explored that the way that I would have hoped. But, perhaps this is not the time or place to do so.

Anyway, thanks for your perspective. And thanks to the rest of you who participated. Grace and peace to you all.

~Kevin

[Kevin Bowser]

I have worked very hard at earning and keeping the trust of my cong. I bring everything I am thinking to my ch. bd. for discussion and clarification. The result has been a huge amount of trust in this pastor, which is a profoundly huge responsibility. As I read Acts 2, 6 and Eph. 4:11-16, I see a clear difference in the task of laypeople and pastors. And I believe we have missed it over the yrs. as a church because we have made the church clergy driven rather than lay driven. We need to return to the concepts of the Word here. If we did, we might just see a wonderful reaping of the harvest of souls we do not now see in too many congregations, no matter what the denomination.
Underlining added by Kevin.

Amen and amen.

[Roland Hearn]

I've been a pastor for 20 years. I'm a PK. My extended family was instrumental in starting the Church of the Nazarene in Australia. I've pastored on two continents, in three churches, started one and about to start another. If I get my way I will never take another cent from ministry. I have come to profoundly admire Paul's wisdom as a tent maker. However, if it is a choice between eating and holding on to my desire I'll probably cave in the end. Here is the reason for my perspective.
I think we loose sight of the real issues as soon as a person is "paid" by the church.
I think the local church has a responsibility to live graciously, generously and richly toward its pastor. No lay person fully understands the struggle of being a pastor, most pastors have been lay people. I have been personally responsible for bringing a number of people from being lay people to being a pastor. Each have said to me at different times in one way or another, "I didn't see this the same way before I was a pastor." (That is on a number of issues). I think it easy for pastors to feel "poorly done by." That gets in the way of what the goal is.
I think lay people can see the pastor as "having it easy" when they see the flexibility they live with. Too often appeals for finances, be it from the pulpit or in the board room, are seen as appeals for better living conditions, some times they are. That gets in the way of what the goal really is.
Pastors can too quickly take a sense of worth from pay packages, vacation allowances, ministry trips, raises, even pastor appreciation day (having them or not having them). That gets in the way of what the real goal is.
The truth is ministry is the responsibility of the church. The church will only be effective to the extent that a pastor does not discover the capacity to feel good about himself (herself) by the amount they do and the number of times they hear the phrase "good job." To be an effective pastor means to help other people find where they are effective and then submitting to them in the area of their effectiveness. I think it is tantamount to failure if the church has decreased Sunday attendance when the pastor is gone. The pastor should be able to go away and the church thrive.
If I have my way I will take every chance I get with the rest of my life encourage people to see the glory of the church, encourage pastors to let go of ministry and revel in the laity (of which they are one if they understand their NT Greek), encourage people to live generously and give and give and give to make sure their pastor is well taken care of so he doesn't feel the need to go running off to the next imagined perfect situation because "God called him." And I will do that without getting paid for it so it doesn't taint the reasons I'm saying it.
I've always been an idealist.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Generally speaking, there is no adversarial relationship. Clergy and lay people get along just fine, love and respect one another, and appreciate one another's unique calling and position in the Church.

Sometimes it doesn't work that way. Specific people have specific issues that may or may not be resolved.

Even that isn't all that big a deal. It only becomes a big deal when people take individual problems and begin applying them on a broad scale. "A lay person did thus and so and therefore, all lay people are inclined to do thus and so." "We had a pastor who did thus...so from now on, we have to be sure all pastors are kept from doing that."

When that happens, we reveal once again that we are a people who stand in need of grace -- on the receiving AND the giving side.

[John Kennedy]

I would concur that the mission of the church should not be 'clergy driven'. I'm not entirely sure it should be 'lay driven' either. I don't see it as being totally one or the other. One would hope for a 'Spirit drvien' synthesis. That is certainly a noble aspiration and, in common with most noble aspirations, much more easily said than done.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. As lamentable as a 'clergy driven' situation may be, is there a possibility that some clergy may be 'driven' by a strongly 'results-or-else' focus by superiors or congregations with unrealistic expectations of what a minister can accomplish? Experiences in churches of several denominations indicates that the foregoing circumstances are not all that uncommon.
I refuse to be held accountable for situations in which I lack the authority to carry out what I'm told to do. If I am charged with
a task, I feel the one ordering me to do so needs to be aware of the variables involved, over some of which I may have little or no control.

I had some experience in negotiating personnel evaluation procedures - I always made a point of attempting to insure that the evaluation was not negatively impacted by variables over which the one being evaluated had insufficient or non-control. I don't think of that as making excuses - I think of it as an attempt to being some equitability and fairness into the situation.

[Billie Goodson]

Generally speaking, there is no adversarial relationship. Clergy and lay people get along just fine, love and respect one another, and appreciate one another's unique calling and position in the Church.

Sometimes it doesn't work that way. Specific people have specific issues that may or may not be resolved.

Even that isn't all that big a deal. It only becomes a big deal when people take individual problems and begin applying them on a broad scale. "A lay person did thus and so and therefore, all lay people are inclined to do thus and so." "We had a pastor who did thus...so from now on, we have to be sure all pastors are kept from doing that."

When that happens, we reveal once again that we are a people who stand in need of grace -- on the receiving AND the giving side.

Preach on Brother Scott -- amen brother!

[John Kennedy]

Your (Roland's) idealism is commendable. One would hope, however, that it is expressed 'descriptively' and not 'prescriptively'.

I don't know whether Paul's 'tent making' situation was simply a reflection of the way things were or if was intended to be normative. I know many ministers who, out of sheer economic necessity, were (and are) bi-vocational.

My father was one of those. Because selling insurance or real estate or whatever didn't seem to be his gift, he spent years doing building trades work to supplement the inadequate income the small churches he pastored were able to pay. And he considered it a privilege to be able to minister to his people. He would hear the rip-roaring sermons about going out by faith and trusting God to provide - and then conclude that God was, indeed, providing by providing employment.

I would hear the speeches by DS's and other leaders which sort of implied that if you were really devoted to your pastorate you would be at it full-time - and I would hurt for my Dad and the others like him whose ministry commitment was sort of written off by people who were being paid fairly good salaries and didn't seem too aware of the situations of others.

And every time I heard them, their credibility dropped. If it bothered my Dad, I never knew it. Long before I heard of Mother Teresa saying it, I can remember Dad's often repeated statement that God didn't necessarily call us to be successful, but he did call us to be faithful. This was coupled with his frequent observation that God didn't always settle up accounts on the 30th of the month.

I don't think Dad would've ever been asked to be a motivational speaker at a church growth conference. I think of that as being to his everlasting credit.

Some of the churches he pastored are still strong today. Some of them are closed - victims of demographic shifts that even the most profiient church growth gurus couldn't have dealt with.

At his funeral we sang Charles Wesley's "A Charge to keep I have...". That second stanza kind of sums up what his ministry was about:

To serve the present age, my calling to fulfill;
Oh, may it all my powers engage to do my Master's will.

[Roland Hearn]

Your (Roland's) idealism is commendable. One would hope, however, that it is expressed 'descriptively' and not 'prescriptively'.

I don't know whether Paul's 'tent making' situation was simply a reflection of the way things were or if was intended to be normative. I know many ministers who, out of sheer economic necessity, were (and are) bi-vocational.

I absolutely believe that Paul's situation is not meant to be the norm. In fact I think it is unquestionable that the church has a responsibility to care for its pastor in a way that reflects the average church members life style and that of the community in which they live.
My desire is to have the opportunity to call people to see the bigger issues invloved and for me that has created this "ideal" dream. Being free of the need to be supported by the church gives me a capacity to say things to the church that are not diluted by my own needs. I think that is precisely the angle Paul had. I recognize that ideals and reality are often two seperate things.


My father was one of those. Because selling insurance or real estate or whatever didn't seem to be his gift, he spent years doing building trades work to supplement the inadequate income the small churches he pastored were able to pay. And he considered it a privilege to be able to minister to his people. He would hear the rip-roaring sermons about going out by faith and trusting God to provide - and then conclude that God was, indeed, providing by providing employment.....

Your whole story about your father, which is inspirational, is precisely the issue. A pastor burning with a passion to see the glory of God isn't going to be held back by the mundane.
It is easy for that spirit to be taken advantage of and I have heard of churches demanding that their pastor take less because he is the pastor and God has called him to sacrifice.
The issues of pastoral/lay conflict aren't of course limited to pay and vacation although very often the same ingredients play a role in the debate. Pastoring should never be a career choice for the called pastor and providing well for your pastor should never an option until you have done all you can.