The "Character" Question for Clergy and Laity

[Mike Schutz]

Churches have often made sharp distinctions between the character of the "ordinary" Christian and the character and expectations of the clergy, as a way of involving the laity in volunteer work without making serious demands on their life and personhood. We have accepted lifestyle dynamics for lay persons involved in significant church ministry that we would never accept from clergy.

1. There is a movement today to include laypersons in the pastoral care work of the church. If we believe that the character of those providing care matters, when and how is it appropriate for the bar to be set as high for lay persons as for clergy? Is this or is this not an issue within holiness churches?

2. What about for other ministries - should we have as high standards for the lifestyle of those on the praise team, for example, as we do for the pastor?

[Jim Chabot]

Churches have often made sharp distinctions between the character of the "ordinary" Christian and the character and expectations of the clergy, as a way of involving the laity in volunteer work without making serious demands on their life and personhood. We have accepted lifestyle dynamics for lay persons involved in significant church ministry that we would never accept from clergy.

1. There is a movement today to include laypersons in the pastoral care work of the church. If we believe that the character of those providing care matters, when and how is it appropriate for the bar to be set as high for lay persons as for clergy? Is this or is this not an issue within holiness churches?

2. What about for other ministries - should we have as high standards for the lifestyle of those on the praise team, for example, as we do for the pastor?

Yes, yes, yes and yes. I can still hear Manny Chavier speak about his Board and ministry team which included the musicians and the building and grounds folks. He said "You people are my assistants, you all represent this church, so of course it is reasonable that whatever expectation are placed on me are placed on you as well. You are in the ministry, we aren't playing church here!" Then with a wink he would say "So would you like to be on my Board?"

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Churches have often made sharp distinctions between the character of the "ordinary" Christian and the character and expectations of the clergy, as a way of involving the laity in volunteer work without making serious demands on their life and personhood. We have accepted lifestyle dynamics for lay persons involved in significant church ministry that we would never accept from clergy.

1. There is a movement today to include laypersons in the pastoral care work of the church. If we believe that the character of those providing care matters, when and how is it appropriate for the bar to be set as high for lay persons as for clergy? Is this or is this not an issue within holiness churches?

2. What about for other ministries - should we have as high standards for the lifestyle of those on the praise team, for example, as we do for the pastor?

Yes. For me the rung is set high by Biblical mandate, that leaders are judged more harshly for their sins.

The question of worship pastors or those on the praise team should be just as high. A current reference for this that I'm reminded of is from the song "Church Clothes" by Lecrae. "Plus I know homegirl a freak, Now how she singing a solo?" The incredulous nature of the unchurched is understandable, why would somone who is known to live a life of sin be picked to sing in front of the congregation? (The song is from the aspect of someone giving reasons/examples of why Christianity isn't true in light of the hypocritical nature of Christians in church)

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Yes, yes, yes and yes. I can still hear Manny Chavier speak about his Board and ministry team which included the musicians and the building and grounds folks. He said "You people are my assistants, you all represent this church, so of course it is reasonable that whatever expectation are placed on me are placed on you as well. You are in the ministry, we aren't playing church here!" Then with a wink he would say "So would you like to be on my Board?"

The great Art Roxby told me he expects the similar thing from his staff. I completely agree with him.

[Ryan Scott]

Churches have often made sharp distinctions between the character of the "ordinary" Christian and the character and expectations of the clergy, as a way of involving the laity in volunteer work without making serious demands on their life and personhood. We have accepted lifestyle dynamics for lay persons involved in significant church ministry that we would never accept from clergy.

1. There is a movement today to include laypersons in the pastoral care work of the church. If we believe that the character of those providing care matters, when and how is it appropriate for the bar to be set as high for lay persons as for clergy? Is this or is this not an issue within holiness churches?

2. What about for other ministries - should we have as high standards for the lifestyle of those on the praise team, for example, as we do for the pastor?

I'm certainly sure we should expect our laity to be as committed to Christ as we expect our pastors to be. I'm also pretty sure we do a poor job of recognizing that even our best pastors and laypersons are imperfect and will fail to meet our expectations of them from time to time.

I also believe that everyone should be involved in pastoral care to each other, whether they're good Christians or not; I believe the act of serving in this way is a conduit of grace that shapes us further into the likeness of Christ.

We are all hypocrites of one kind or another. The Church has done a fantastic job of making sure public hypocrisy is rooted out and private hypocrisy is kept secret.

Still, we are charged with being sanctified, Spirit-filled disciples of Jesus Christ, growing each and every day into Christlikeness. That being said, perhaps that can be our only prerequisite for service in the Church?

[Billy Cox]

The great Art Roxby told me he expects the similar thing from his staff. I completely agree with him.

But Jim isn't talking about the pastor's employees whom he hires/fires at will with or without cause, but rather laypeople, presumably with a wide range of background, qualifications, gifts and graces.

[Gene Tatsch]

Leaders lead the flock to whomever they follow.
If they are disciples/followers of Jesus, filled with His Spirit, then they will lead the flock towards Him.
Otherwise they will unavoidably lead elsewhere.
Regardless of their specific role.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

But Jim isn't talking about the pastor's employees whom he hires/fires at will with or without cause, but rather laypeople, presumably with a wide range of background, qualifications, gifts and graces.

If someone is leading in any capacity (even singing on a stage) then they need to be held to the same higher standard as leaders.

[Jon Bemis]

What Ryan said . . .

[David Graham]

I would agree that when a lay person (e.g. an Elder) provides Pastoral care to any member of the church, the same ministerial ethics, the same code of conduct, and the same depth of spiritual commitment that apply to Ministers need to also apply to them; simply because they can be ministering to vulnerable people who need to be able to trust them.

Likewise for those who work in a paid capacity within the local church office, and honesty and confidentiality are required, then again similar standards between the Minister and staff must apply.

However, do we require this standard to the church member's non-Christian husband who has volunteered to mow the church lawn or fix the church toilet...... I suspect that we do not!

Likewise, do we expect an unusual amount of christian maturity from a young person who is a gifted musician, and bar him/her from the worship band unless they "attain to the same standard" as the minister? Again, I suspect not! (Although we could cause him/her to go elsewhere if we do. From my experience if are going to be so ungracious let us show our true colours early so that he/she can make the transition earlier than later and not waste too much time with us..... it will be the greatest service that we can do for them!)

Recently we held a "Cafe Church" outreach service to which members were encouraged to invite their non churched neighbours. Among the various artist was a young lady, a new Christian, who among other things earned a living as a singer in night clubs and a part time bar maid. (Perhaps more outragiously for some, she had a "stud in her lower lip) But the songs that she sang she also wrote from her new found spiritual experience and many of the deeply spiritual people in the church, understood her journey and were truly blessed. In fact, one lady was in tears.

When I think that Jesus chose 12 ordinary blokes with all of their flaws and deficiencies to follow him and how after repeated failures they eventually got it right....... then I don't think that we should put too high a standard before others who in many ways are like them, and who like them, will grow and mature and eventually get it "right" if only we could be patient and gracious with them.

Goodness, there are times in my ministry that I don't think that I get it fully right, and I don't always measure up to the full stature of Christ. But God persists with me and he who sanctifies me wholly also santifies me day by day through failed experiences.

I think that the highest standard we should strive for is the same gracious love of Christ for others that he in his mercy shows to us day by day.

[Peggy Gray]

I would agree that when a lay person (e.g. an Elder) provides Pastoral care to any member of the church, the same ministerial ethics, the same code of conduct, and the same depth of spiritual commitment that apply to Ministers need to also apply to them; simply because they can be ministering to vulnerable people who need to be able to trust them.

Likewise for those who work in a paid capacity within the local church office, and honesty and confidentiality are required, then again similar standards between the Minister and staff must apply.

However, do we require this standard to the church member's non-Christian husband who has volunteered to mow the church lawn or fix the church toilet...... I suspect that we do not!

Likewise, do we expect an unusual amount of christian maturity from a young person who is a gifted musician, and bar him/her from the worship band unless they "attain to the same standard" as the minister? Again, I suspect not! (Although we could cause him/her to go elsewhere if we do. From my experience if are going to be so ungracious let us show our true colours early so that he/she can make the transition earlier than later and not waste too much time with us..... it will be the greatest service that we can do for them!)

Recently we held a "Cafe Church" outreach service to which members were encouraged to invite their non churched neighbours. Among the various artist was a young lady, a new Christian, who among other things earned a living as a singer in night clubs and a part time bar maid. (Perhaps more outragiously for some, she had a "stud in her lower lip) But the songs that she sang she also wrote from her new found spiritual experience and many of the deeply spiritual people in the church, understood her journey and were truly blessed. In fact, one lady was in tears.

When I think that Jesus chose 12 ordinary blokes with all of their flaws and deficiencies to follow him and how after repeated failures they eventually got it right....... then I don't think that we should put too high a standard before others who in many ways are like them, and who like them, will grow and mature and eventually get it "right" if only we could be patient and gracious with them.

Goodness, there are times in my ministry that I don't think that I get it fully right, and I don't always measure up to the full stature of Christ. But God persists with me and he who sanctifies me wholly also santifies me day by day through failed experiences.

I think that the highest standard we should strive for is the same gracious love of Christ for others that he in his mercy shows to us day by day.

I've been trying since yesterday afternoon to put my feelings about this into words, and now I don't have to. David did it for me. Thank you.

[Kevin Rector]

I think that the church growth movement and various current "movements" have focused on minimizing what the church requires of people. What I tend to feel is that people will rise to the level of expectation that we have for them.

For instance, I am a Cub Scout den leader. The den leader last year never placed the expectation on the boys that they should wear their uniforms. Cub Scouts is a uniformed organization. My son ALWAYS wore his uniform, and often was the only boy in uniform. This year I set the expectation very clearly that the boys were to wear their uniforms. Now, all the boys wear their uniforms and only one or maybe two are in street clothes. I set the standard, and I model the standard by wearing my uniform (even though I think that little boys in uniforms is cute and grown men in uniforms is not). I don't beat up the boys that fail to wear their uniform, but I remind them that they are supposed to and encourage them to do it. Sometimes they have legitimate reasons why they couldn't and I give them "grace" and encourage them to do better next time. Sometimes they come in half their uniform or with the shirt un-tucked and I help them to do better.

The church is a LOT like that. If the leadership of the church places little to no expectations on the people, the people will "rise" to that level of expectation. However, if we articulate clearly the very high standards that our God has for us, then many people (not all) will rise to those expectations. Far too often, I think that leaders are afraid to articulate those expectations because they are afraid that they will scare people off, and sometimes they will.

One other thing, people are much more likely to commit to things that cost them something. If church is a product that is to be produced by the professionals and consumed by the laity and it only costs a few bucks in the offering plate, there will never be a true community of Christ that develops there. But when people are expected to live to a particularly high standard, and it costs them time and emotional energy, there will be vastly increased commitment to the mission and purposes of the church.

[Marsha Lynn]

What? We have lower standards for laypeople doing ministry than for professional clergy? Why hasn't anyone told me about this? It could have saved me a lot of effort at trying to be the best disciple of Jesus Christ I can be. All that effort for naught ... what a waste. Sigh.

[Sarah Smith]

I've seen the expectation--in an ELCA church, a CotN, an SBC church, and from my BIC missionary friends--that baptism IS ordination. (Of course they also have an ordination to set someone apart to do a specific task, pastoring, in their groups. Not denying that.)

With the mindset that ALL baptized believers are ordained as priests and ministers of Christ, ALL are held to the same standards.

Of course with that one has to remember ALL vocations serve Christ.

Some full time in the church, some parttime in the church, some as church volunteers, and most will serve outside the church.

Seemed Biblical to me.

[David Graham]

The church is a LOT like that. If the leadership of the church places little to no expectations on the people, the people will "rise" to that level of expectation. However, if we articulate clearly the very high standards that our God has for us, then many people (not all) will rise to those expectations. Far too often, I think that leaders are afraid to articulate those expectations because they are afraid that they will scare people off, and sometimes they will.

And here is the rub Kevin; I absolutely have no expectations of my own for people to aspire towards apart from one: for them to believe in and follow Jesus Christ as Lord of their lives. I am more concerned about my people meeting his expectations of them. If they get that right, then it doesn't matter how they dress or whether they have "lip studs" or in what occupation they make their living.

With the mindset that ALL baptized believers are ordained as priests and ministers of Christ, ALL are held to the same standards.
Of course with that one has to remember ALL vocations serve Christ.
Some full time in the church, some parttime in the church, some as church volunteers, and most will serve outside the church.
Seemed Biblical to me.

Yes you're absolutely right...... but Christ is their Saviour, their Lord and their judge. He sets the standard for them and it's up to them to obey him. I have no right to interfere in the relationship between the Master and his servant. The best I can do as a fellow servant is to guide them from my understanding of the scriptures, church tradition and my own life's experiences. If their heart is right with God in Christ, then I have to trust their Lord to deal with them as he will. If I have a problem with that than it is mostly MY problem, not they'res.

[Hans Deventer]

Just ran across what the Didache says: "11:10 And any prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet."

Now that is some statement! Even if the prophet teaches the truth, if (s)he doesn't live accordingly, (s)he is still a false prophet.

[Sarah Smith]

Let me clarify something:

setting the bar for character is one thing--should be equally high for all.

But one's fashion choices, unless they violate Scripture, has nothing to do with character.

Might not like some of today's fashions myself, but I only see lack of character when it lacks modesty, such as not covering the pertinent parts or lavishly expensive or violates what I believe to be another Bible principle and intends to deceive on gender.

I might not like long hair on a man, but I know when it is mannishly long hair and when I am in the presence of a man trying to fool me into thinking he is female. Big difference.

[Marsha Lynn]

Churches have often made sharp distinctions between the character of the "ordinary" Christian and the character and expectations of the clergy, as a way of involving the laity in volunteer work without making serious demands on their life and personhood. We have accepted lifestyle dynamics for lay persons involved in significant church ministry that we would never accept from clergy.

I'm curious. What are the "lifestyle dynamics" we should possibly consider to be disqualifiers for laypeople wanting to be involved in ministry? Others have mentioned various levels of ministry such as fixing toilets and playing in the praise band. But I presume you are talking about the most pastoral types of ministry, say, teaching, counseling, and administration. Is that correct?

Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders who fit the description of being: "blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it" (Titus 1:6-9). Are these the traits you have in mind?

Marsha

[Mike Schutz]

I'm curious. What are the "lifestyle dynamics" we should possibly consider to be disqualifiers for laypeople wanting to be involved in ministry? Others have mentioned various levels of ministry such as fixing toilets and playing in the praise band. But I presume you are talking about the most pastoral types of ministry, say, teaching, counseling, and administration. Is that correct?

Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders who fit the description of being: "blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it" (Titus 1:6-9). Are these the traits you have in mind?

Marsha

Marsha, thanks for asking.

My mind is all over the lot on this issue. The most obvious practical dynamics involve those ministries that are public, but not pastoral care - such as music ministry. That is an important conversation, but not exactly where I am going here.

There is quite a bit of conversation these days about what might be considered the "third wave" in pastoral care. Traditionally, pastoral care was about the "message" - making sure people knew and received the contents of the Christian faith throughout life. The second wave might be considered the clinical pastoral education movement and other emphases on the person of the pastoral caregiver. This emphasized the kind of person the pastor is and what strengths, weaknesses, and life issues the pastoral caregiver brings to the relationship. The "third wave" desires to make pastoral care the responsibility of both clergy and laity, involves the equipping of laity for pastoral care functions and relationships, with a strong emphasis on the context of pastoral care. Probably the best known of this type of emphasis is the "Stephen Ministry."

So, if the local congregation is preparing lay members to provide pastoral care within congregational life, should the same expectation be placed on them as is placed upon the ordained clergy regarding lifestyle issues? While on the surface this seems to be an easy question, especially when we keep with general, biblical statements such as those from Paul regarding overseers, the problem is in the details. For example, churches often expect pastors to have an exemplary family life. How family dynamics are held up to scrutiny is as much about perception as stated rules and guidelines. Yet there are trained, equipped, gifted laypersons whose family life is not in keeping with those standards. Those who would consider themselves recovering - yet not recovered - addicts may be excellent pastoral caregivers for a specific population but many congregations would have difficulty calling people with that background to serve as senior pastors.

[Dave McClung]

Marsha, thanks for asking.

My mind is all over the lot on this issue. The most obvious practical dynamics involve those ministries that are public, but not pastoral care - such as music ministry. That is an important conversation, but not exactly where I am going here.

There is quite a bit of conversation these days about what might be considered the "third wave" in pastoral care. Traditionally, pastoral care was about the "message" - making sure people knew and received the contents of the Christian faith throughout life. The second wave might be considered the clinical pastoral education movement and other emphases on the person of the pastoral caregiver. This emphasized the kind of person the pastor is and what strengths, weaknesses, and life issues the pastoral caregiver brings to the relationship. The "third wave" desires to make pastoral care the responsibility of both clergy and laity, involves the equipping of laity for pastoral care functions and relationships, with a strong emphasis on the context of pastoral care. Probably the best known of this type of emphasis is the "Stephen Ministry."

So, if the local congregation is preparing lay members to provide pastoral care within congregational life, should the same expectation be placed on them as is placed upon the ordained clergy regarding lifestyle issues? While on the surface this seems to be an easy question, especially when we keep with general, biblical statements such as those from Paul regarding overseers, the problem is in the details. For example, churches often expect pastors to have an exemplary family life. How family dynamics are held up to scrutiny is as much about perception as stated rules and guidelines. Yet there are trained, equipped, gifted laypersons whose family life is not in keeping with those standards. Those who would consider themselves recovering - yet not recovered - addicts may be excellent pastoral caregivers for a specific population but many congregations would have difficulty calling people with that background to serve as senior pastors.

Mike
I certainly see your point; however, I think there are two different issues.

Your comments seem to be aimed at the question of what character requirements should we have before we allow people to fill ministry assignments in the church. In my opinion, we should do our best to involve everyone in a place of ministry that is appropriate for their ability and state of maturity. Anyone who wants to serve should be allowed to serve.

The second issue is when should the church recognize a person's character. Members of the clergy have been licensed or ordained by the church. The church provides them with a credential that says to the world, "This person is a representative of the church." It is appropriate to have a higher level of expectation for those who are credentialed." It is the same difference as between "an accountant" and a "CPA." We have higher expectations of the CPA.

[Mike Schutz]

Mike
I certainly see your point; however, I think there are two different issues.

Your comments seem to be aimed at the question of what character requirements should we have before we allow people to fill ministry assignments in the church. In my opinion, we should do our best to involve everyone in a place of ministry that is appropriate for their ability and state of maturity. Anyone who wants to serve should be allowed to serve.

The second issue is when should the church recognize a person's character. Members of the clergy have been licensed or ordained by the church. The church provides them with a credential that says to the world, "This person is a representative of the church." It is appropriate to have a higher level of expectation for those who are credentialed." It is the same difference as between "an accountant" and a "CPA." We have higher expectations of the CPA.

Dave,
I certainly understand and appreciate your point. However, as i described in my second post, I am specifially addressing the middle area between "everyone should have a ministry," and "there are those who have been specifically called to be pastors and overseers." These are the folks who have the giftedness, skills, and abilities to perform pastoral care responsibilites that have in the past often been strictly the purview of clergy. There is a trend in the church to move certain of these responsibilities - such as counseling, visitation, grief work, etc, to trained laity. This is going to be more necessary as we move to bivocational clergy.
My question concerns our desire to consider the whole life of such a person, not just their skills for the task. I suppose one may argue that if these folks are "sanctified," we shouldn't have to worry. I wonder what others think.

[Dave McClung]

Dave,
I certainly understand and appreciate your point. However, as i described in my second post, I am specifially addressing the middle area between "everyone should have a ministry," and "there are those who have been specifically called to be pastors and overseers." These are the folks who have the giftedness, skills, and abilities to perform pastoral care responsibilites that have in the past often been strictly the purview of clergy. There is a trend in the church to move certain of these responsibilities - such as counseling, visitation, grief work, etc, to trained laity. This is going to be more necessary as we move to bivocational clergy.
My question concerns our desire to consider the whole life of such a person, not just their skills for the task. I suppose one may argue that if these folks are "sanctified," we shouldn't have to worry. I wonder what others think.

As I understand the scripture, we are to hold each other accountable. Whether we are lay or clergy shouldn't make a difference.

Some of the jobs you mention would likely be paid jobs. If a person is paid by the church, the church should hold them accountable as an employee. If a person is volunteer, the church members should hold them accountable as fellow Christians. There is a difference.

[Marsha Lynn]

My mind is all over the lot on this issue.

I can identify with that. One area where things get sticky, in my opinion, is when our expectations reflect external "American Christian culture" values more than matters of the heart.

For example, churches often expect pastors to have an exemplary family life. How family dynamics are held up to scrutiny is as much about perception as stated rules and guidelines. Yet there are trained, equipped, gifted laypersons whose family life is not in keeping with those standards. Those who would consider themselves recovering - yet not recovered - addicts may be excellent pastoral caregivers for a specific population but many congregations would have difficulty calling people with that background to serve as senior pastors.

Yet, we wouldn't necessarily reject as senior pastor someone who showed signs of gluttony or who was a workaholic, even though they might not fit Paul's requirements of being self-controlled and disciplined. Avoiding tobacco and alcohol is much more important to us. How do we truly assess character to determine the spiritual health of an individual.

There are a couple of cases that have bothered me through the years. I've shared one here before. I still don't know what to think about it. It involved a children's worker who was removed from all her appointments after being arrested for check deception. The person who explained to me what had happened asked, "Is that the sort of person you would want teaching your children?" No response to that question was expected or invited, but my mind immediately scanned through the people who taught my children over the years. Some were sharp-tongued and judgmental. Some were tight-fisted. Some were downright spiteful on occasion. Some had terrible theology. But none of them were ever accused of check deception.

Yet ... they weren't charged with teaching personal finances to my children. They were supposed to be teaching values such as kindness, compassion, mercy, love, and forgiveness -- virtues that were sometimes noticeably scarce in their own lives. How was it we would choose people long on legalistic conformance to the holiness lifestyle but short on grace over someone who, in a time of financial despair, wrote checks against a closed checking account (or whatever facts lay behind the check deception charges)? Is that really the obvious choice?

I suppose it is, but there's still something troubling about the way we measure people when filling positions. I heard recently of a young woman with a rather sordid personal history turning to the church in search of spiritual help. A very clean and holy Christian set up meetings with this person to disciple them. Again, I was troubled. Wasn't anyone available who could better identify with the struggles this person is facing? I just couldn't imagine any sort of healthy relationship coming from that pairing.

"We all stumble in many ways." And even if we did have perfect people available for all our ministry positions in terms of measuring up to the values of the "American Christian culture," is that really who we want for them? I see almost nothing about humility, grace, or a teachable spirit in those values. Maybe I'm fooling myself, but I really do think I would rather have a recovering alcoholic or someone struggling with their personal finances to the point of running into trouble with the law teaching my children than a sharp-tongued, graceless modern-day Pharisee.

Marsha