The recent
edition of “The Alban Weekly” (https://alban.org/archive/alternative-pastoral-models/)
deals with the issue of congregations not being able to afford full-time
pastoral leadership. One of the models offered as an alternative is
bi-vocational pastors. This model is nothing new, even though it is now being touted
as the wave of the future. I remember when I was in elementary school (a long,
long time ago) the local Baptist minister drove a school bus in addition to
serving the congregation.
For over
twenty years I advocated that prior to presenting a person for ordination as a
teaching elder (PCUSA speak for minister) they must be able to demonstrate a
second set of skills by which they could earn a living. I could see (serving a
presbytery of mainly smaller, rural, aging congregations) that fewer and fewer
would be able to afford a full-time pastor. The two general presbyters before
me, going back into the 1970s, were already dealing with that. They developed
and maintained a larger parish program with a single minister serving as many
as six to ten congregations. The minister would itinerate among them on a
revolving schedule and usually leading worship in two congregations each week.
The congregations paid into the pool for compensation and the presbytery
allocated mission funds from the larger congregation to provide a full-time
compensation and benefits. For several years this model seemed to work as a
means of keeping smaller membership congregations having weekly worship.
A few things
eventually led to the end of that model in the presbytery. One was the
reluctance of ministers to move into the area and to serve multiple
congregations. Another was the growing reluctance of some of the congregations
to share pastoral leadership. A third was a decreasing mission income to the
presbytery and a greater inability of the participating congregations to
contribute to the compensation pool. And I admit, my bias that just keeping the
doors open on Sundays was not a particularly faithful model of stewardship.
As our larger
parish model was phasing out, the denomination developed a ministry model
called commissioned lay preachers. Initially this model was for congregations
which were far flung from another with which to share a pastor, with
insufficient financial resources, and for language specific congregations. The
concept was that a congregation would identify a person in the congregation to
serve the worship and pastoral needs of the congregation. Within a short period
of time the name was change to commissioned lay pastor (CLP) and some specific
educational grounding in worship, theology and polity was required, which was
the responsibility of the presbytery to provide. Not too long after that the
name was again changed to “ruling elder commissioned to particular pastoral
service.” Usually, they were called commissioned ruling elders (CREs).
During this
developmental process presbyteries began to determine that the CLPs and then
the CREs should not/shall not serve their own congregation. Additionally,
presbyteries began a general use of this model as a standard model to provide
worship and limited pastoral care for smaller membership congregations. Many
congregations seemed to feel entitled to have their own CRE rather than sharing
a full-time teaching elder. CREs were not required to receive the full compensation
and benefits which were required for installed ministers, or which some
presbyteries required for those serving in what are now called “temporary
pastoral positions.” By some they were referred it as the “cheaper preacher” model.
It was more affordable for the congregations.
There were
several consequences arising from this model. One consequence was that some
CREs began to expect to be treated with the same status as those ordained as
teaching elders. Some even began to wear the preaching robes, which had
previously been an indicator of advanced theological education. In a few
situations some even began to be referred to as “pastor.” As time passed some
of the “sending congregations,” those from which the CREs came, began to want
to hold on to their own cadre of leaders instead of sending them off to serve
another congregation. Also, some of the CREs missed out on worship and
participation in their “home” congregation. In our general area, we saw fewer
and fewer people entering the educational process to serve as CREs. We had a consortium
of presbyteries and a seminary working together to provide both face to face
and virtual preparation courses. Just recently, the seminary has decided it
would no longer provide the administrative and virtual support for the program
due to decreased enrollment.
Another
factor is the denomination, in an effort to give more desecration/power to the
presbyteries, eliminated the specific requirements of educational areas for the
preparation of CREs. Now each presbytery may decide what, if any, additional
areas of preparation will be required. In the early CLP years, the presbytery I
served made the decision that a person only needed a high school education to
serve as a CLP and then CRE. My former partner in presbytery leadership rightly
stated, “The CLPs/CREs are natural speakers of the indigenous theology found in
the congregations.” I question if that is enough. A congregation’s theology and
practice will only grow to the extent of the one(s)
wayostccs.com
No comments:
Post a Comment