Showing posts with label Pastors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pastors. Show all posts

Thursday, November 20, 2008

The Pastor's Capacity for Self-Deception

True or False: Pastors have a greater capacity for self-deception than any other profession.

Lately, I've been hearing lots of stories of pastors who have become at-odds with their congregations, pastors who want to teach their congregations a lesson and pastors who cry themselves to sleep every week because they feel unloved or unsuccessful. Let me be clear, there are most definitely those pastors who have gotten a bum rap from their church or those who have simply become victims by no cause of their own, but for today, I'd like to honestly approach the issues which I feel make the above statement true. Obviously, many pastors are very humble, very discerning and very successful, but let's air out some of the temptations.

The God Factor: Let's face it - at the core of most of the issues surrounding the pastor's temptation for self-deception is their "connection" to God. If God is a card to be played, then no one plays it quite as much as those with the collar. Throughout history, pastors have used God to legitimatize all sorts of unimaginable crimes against humanity because of the factors that follow, and the temptation is real to use it yourself.

The Holy Domini: In many traditions, including the one I grew up in, there is a history of reverence for the pastoral office. Pastors were often called "Domini" or "Reverend" as titles that were not to be forgotten. Still, to this day, I hear pastors who insist on people calling them "Rev. Johnson" in all situations, simply to remind the laity that they are not of your stature. In many ways, respect for pastors is not a bad thing - we all appreciate the month of October - but the best pastors have no need for requiring this sort of title recognition, as if it makes one of higher rank in Christ's kingdom.

The Expert Theologian: The previous temptation begs the ultimate question: what is it that sets pastors apart from everyone else in the bench? Depending on the tradition, it might not be very much at all, frankly! Some believe it to be a supernatural call from God, some believe it to be the whimsical decision of the person already holding the position. Still others believe that it is earned through a series of educational or professional stepping stones, as if achieving ordination was some sort of survival run through the drudges of denominationalism. What is common to all, however, is the idea that pastors are gifted with some sort of theological knowledge that is superior to most of the congregation (this seems to be more true the lower on the socio-economic scale the congregation is). Knowing more than others is always a key piece of power. When the pastor can reason away any decision he/she makes from a Biblical/theological proof-texting, they often remain untouchable.

The Scared Porcupine: Pastors often operate from a position of fear. Believe it or not, pastors are often some of the most insecure, fearful people in the world. Some of it because of their circumstances - many churches teeter on the edge of existence and closure, all pastors have people in their churches who want them gone and most pastors, despite the reverance mentioned earlier, go under-appreciated verbally and tangibally. However, some of it is a direct result of the same personality that drives pastors to their positions. Most pastors match one of two personality types - those who are high-intelligence but poor with people or those who are creative people-people but lesser administrators. Without a ready recognition of weaknesses, many pastors are left to react harshly to critique leveled against them. This is why many pastors can be found to be at odds with their congregations when they try to be the authority in every area of the church. Inevitably, they will be weak in their weak areas and, when questioned, may lash out claiming a coup or persecution.

The Great Martyr: There are a great many pastors in the world who see themselves as the ultimate discerners of God's will. Of course they won't admit it - they'll even set up committees to get the opinions of others. However, when their forced ideas don't work, their sermons are only interesting to themselves and they struggle to connect with anyone outside the four walls of their church building, they automatically assume that Satan is lodging an assault against them through culture, innovation and members of their own congregation. What percentage of pastors wake up on Monday morning bemoaning their people, their volunteers, their predecessors, their culture and look for greener pastures when they could be examining their own practices, programs, content and ability to motivate their people and impact their community?

Job Security: How many pastors hold their current positions because it pays for their expenses and fills a need in their stated denomination? If that's your only motivation for ministry, then your vested interest in doing things better will be horribly compromised.

There are really two questions to be answered: How did we get here and how do we get out of a bad situation for many churches and pastors? I have thoughts.......but I'd rather hear yours! God is good.....let the Church arise.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Professional Jesus People

Somewhere down the road (although it scares me), I may wind up as a senior pastor or even a solo pastor at a church. At some points, this is really exciting....something I really look forward to. At other times, I think I'd like to keep the job I have forever.....hanging out with teenagers and playing my guitar for a living.

What perhaps frustrates me most about being a pastor are some of my future colleagues. To be sure, this is no slam against my senior pastor, who is one of the most laid back and socially adequate pastors I've ever met. What drives me crazy, however, is the constant flow of pastors who come back to my seminary classes and try to impress the professor or us as seminarians with their large storehouse of knowledge. A couple semesters ago, we had this guy in one of our classes who we called "Professor Student". He was obsessed with sharing every bit of knowledge he had ever acquired and pumping up his own abilities in Greek and constantly reminding us how we were still in seminary and "not there yet". Yesterday, one of these guys just reeled off four sentences in Hebrew while he talked about how he uses it so effectively in his ministry.

I know the church he comes from...its floundering. Maybe try some English.

There's a catch 22 here. Having feet in two denominations has opened my eyes about the necessity of seminary education. Its obvious that certain pastors and leaders in my current denomination would have benefited (some just a little, but some huge amounts) from a mandatory seminary education. Firstly, the Biblical knowledge and theological perspective would help. However, exposure to ministry in different settings and the cross-fertilization of ideas would benefit them greatly. On the other side, ministry in the CRC seems to be defined by intellectuality, and it drives me crazy! When churches want to call you as a pastor, they want to hear your sermon tapes, as if sermons are the only thing you do. In order to get my license to preach in CRC churches, I have to promise to preach Christian Education and Heidelberg Catechism. Never mind relevance. I've taken multiple "exegesis" classes, learning how to interpret the scriptures for preaching and teaching. What did we do? Memorize the original languages. Argh. Today we discussed how we would teach about the Hebrew language and applications of the Jewish mishnah in adult bible study classes by lecturing. Wow.

One of the things that really cracks me up is the pride that pastors take in programmatic development and how closely its success is related to themselves. I addressed this in my most recent sermon. We always view ourselves so highly, as if our churches would become a hole in the ground if we would leave or somehow the passing down of the gospel will cease if I am not the facilitator. Shame on us.

My greatest concern when I go to fill pulpit supply now is not how prepared my sermon is, or how well I can announce songs (because everyone knows hymns are the only music we use), but whether or not I'll get a swift kick for not wearing a suit. If being a preacher means wearing a suit on Sundays, dressing up like a bank owner during the week, trying to dispense knowledge at every turn, and enjoying the sound of my own voice, then I'll stick with plucking my guitar.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Public Apology

Just a memo to all Church outsiders in the world: we're sorry.

Let's face a simple fact here: the way Christianity is presented to the world through many different outlets is idiotic and ridiculous. Sometimes when I make my commute into Grand Rapids, I feel self-conscious if I pass someone going 65 because I'm afraid they'll see the Christian fish on the back of my car and assume all Christians are law-breaking vigilantes. But that doesn't compare to the ridiculousness of the face that Christianity presents to the world in many different ways. If I were an outsider, I would think Christians are the most backward, bigoted people in the whole world.

Of course, this isn't true in all areas. Certainly, there are many churches who present a socially conscious self-respecting message to the world without sacrificing the truths we all stand for. But I think this is even more true in the very places the gospel needs to have more relevance: smalltown America.

For example, we've got a fundamentalist church that is positioned right on the main entrance to town that somehow got their hands on a lighted-up sign. Of course, they use that sign to do the Lord's work, like condemning the NIV, associating tattoos with Satan, associating body piercings with hell and telling everyone who drinks that Jesus would disown them.

Come on.

I went to a rummage sale last week where a nice, well-meaning Christian man sold me an entertainment stand for our youth room for $1. He was selling his possessions from his trailer park home so that he could go on the mission field for two years. Even though he knew I was a pastor, he still handed me a tract. As I was leaving, I overheard him trying to "evangelistically" speak to some Harley bikers in a beat-up pickup truck. When he saw one of them wearing army pants, he used this keen line: "You're in the army, huh? Well I'm in the Lord's army!"

Nice. And our numbers are dropping?

And how about that Christian TV. Strong showing for Christianity there. Whether its poorly produced "extreme sports evangelism" or Biblical "health supplements", somehow we've managed to put our least relevant foot forward as a Christian community. Why is it that the only relevant Christian message on television is spoken by vegetables? I was watching South Park the other night on Comedy Central do a caricature of the 700 Club, and it was probably the most accurate thing I've ever seen. If you want to check it out, its episode #311: Starvin Marvin in Space.

I'm tolerant, I really am. We played church league softball a couple weeks back against a team where all the girls wore skirts during the game. But they're socially adjusted! Good Ghandi. Lets just throw in the towel if we really think talking in old English, condemning piercings, or even clinging to Christian education are the kinds of things we need to cling to so Christianity is Christianity. I'm not one of these argumentative emerging-church-only types. I just don't like it when I work all day long to help my church do legitimate ministry as Christ would and we're simply trumped by the louder, prouder arm of the Church that has lost complete touch with their own culture. Like it or not, marketing is part of evangelism, and we suck at it. Some people just need to be shook.

Or maybe I'll just drive the speed limit.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Prank Calls

Being a seminarian gets you introduced to lots of buzz words. Some of these are distinctly Reformed, but some are buzz words across the denominational lines, and most of them bug me like heck. Having attended two Lilly-funded institutions and having a mom who works for a third, I've certainly gotten my share of rhetoric about "discovering your calling". I used to think this idea of calling was pretty profound, maybe even Biblical. After all, Lilly sent me to Turkey for a sight-seeing trip to "discover my calling". However, after sitting through a nauseating presentation today where three people were put in front of a group for a mass group counselling session, I have to ask myself: do we have any idea what we're talking about when it comes to calling?

My initial thought is no. Let's start with something simple. Is "my call" something I get because I'm in ministry, but that my friend Jon doesn't get because he's in architecture? Absolutely not, chime in Dordt & Calvin, but why are seminarians pigeon-holed for this type of self-discovery? No one asks my friend Mick if he's really "called" to be an insurance salesman, but God help my soul if I'm not really called to be a pastor. Now sure, I've been taught to tell my calling story, and its pretty impressive how God has worked in my life and made me fit to be a minister in the church. What I've been taught to do is tell about things that have any hint of pastor-like situational benefit and anoint each one to be one of those big lighted signs with the arrows on top that led me into the ministry. To be left out: being a pastor is a legitamite career, pastors make more money than their average congregant, pastors get to count coffee and golf as ministry expenses, working at a particular church because it was situationally helpful.

Conveniently, the CRC believes its every pastor's calling to go to seminary for three (cough, four) years, or at least Calvin for a quarter. Well, senior pastors at least. That's not how evangelists or youth pastors are called, apparently. Kudos to God for consulting with our denomination about that first, when He sees perfectly fit to "call" other people to ministry through monestaries, one year of seminary, or no seminary at all. That's cool, though, because God has a different set of standards for calling Methodists and Catholics.

After all, becoming a pastor is contingent on "getting called" by a church. Notice, though, how if a church needs a secretary, custodian, youth pastor, or organist, they don't "call" one of those. Those jobs only warrant a newspaper ad and the submission of a resume. See those people running towards the janitor? Yeah, they're the Christian scholars coming to baptize his hiring as "discovering his calling". However, it'll be those same people at the council meeting two years from now deciding that janitoring is, in fact, not his calling because he doesn't know how to make toilets shine.

Now, theoretically, if three faithful churches call you as a senior pastor, what the heck are you supposed to think? Obviously 2, or maybe 3 of those churches are just crappy at "discovering God's call" for them, just like they were 2 years ago when they hired the "man of God's leading" and had him leave over allegations of sexual misconduct. Kind of sounds like a stereotype of election, doesn't it? People in the Church are elect forever and ever....that is, until they leave the Church and then they never were elect to start with or they're still somehow elect and in denial.

What this really all reminds me of is my high school relationships. Since I hung out with a good group of Christian youth-group-attending girls, my dating life had great overtones of providence. Those of us who were most pious would say things like "I think its God's will that you date me" or "I need to break up with you because its not what God wills". Possible. Maybe. Laughable? Absolutely. The truth is that while we can sometimes hear that "still small voice" in our heads, its often our own subconscious. We are also adept at getting "confirmation" from our like-minded friends.

Oh brother.

Here's what I think. Somehow the pundits have found a mystical union between the idea of calling as both prescriptive and descriptive. We know how the prescriptive extreme works: God decides before we're born what our calling is and we just live that out. Yay for fatalism! On the other hand, descriptive calling seems only like subjective nostalgic interpretation: God did this in my life, and this, and this and it was because he wanted me to be a pastor (oh, and I recently graduated from a Christian liberal arts school with no direction plus the pastors have uber job security).

Maybe I'm off my rocker here, and its not to say that I think retelling the action of God in our lives is a bad thing. But lets stop telling high school and college kids to wait for some mystical "calling" that is just as much descriptive as it is prescriptive. One of the major problems that our seminary's high school calling discernment program has had is that kids who get rejected from participation feel that they might not be called to ministry. The year after I participated, they opened the field up to 50 participants from 35 for particularly that reason. What kind of monster have we created this "calling" to be? Can't we just focus on grateful, faithful Christian living instead of passing around ideas about a non-graspable, individualistic buzz word?

Monday, January 15, 2007

Youth Ministry to the Detriment of the Church

There's something that they don't often teach you in Youth Ministry in college, and something most youth ministry people don't like to think about. Its the dark side of youth ministry which often causes more problems than good. Statistically speaking, youth ministry is one of the most unsuccessful ventures the Church has ever embarked on, and yet it has caused nearly the same amount of turmoil where absent as Contemporary Christian Music has. Half my income comes from youth ministry, so I'm not about to advocate the removal of it from churches across the country, but I think that we would be wise to consider the ramifications of this beast we've created.

The thought started in the late 80's and early 90's that high school students needed their own staff member at churches. It would be helpful, at this point, to notice that this movement came from an internal outcry of young people, which was not alone, but simply louder than that of other age groups. For instance, there were hardly any churches at this point with paid Worship Pastors, Congregational Life Pastors, Evangelism Pastors, Children's Pastors, etc. We should immediately recognize what effect a staff member with a targeted age group has on a church. The positive is that the group is usually blest by this person and therefore enjoys the addition. In the case of youth pastors, parents were also pleased because their kids were receiving a greater deal of attention while paranoia ran rampant that our kids were being marched off by a secular pied piper wholesale. What was lying in the background of these hirings, however, were the host of people who had little or nothing to gain from a teenager-focused staff member. Children, young couples, middle-aged adults, older adults, and sometimes even parents were told that they were less important in the church's eyes, not by a word off the pulpit, but by the church's checkbook. This was evident not only in the hiring of youth pastors, but in the program funding that would inevitably blossom.

This is not to say that hiring youth pastors often makes a church angry. Many of the people in the congregation get a martyr-like attitude with respect to youth. One of the classic lines I hear over and over again in churches is: "We need to lay aside our preferences because they are the Church of tomorrow!" I suppose there is some noble truth to that statement, but suddnely you have entire generations of passive Christians that believe their non-involvement and the lack of ministry to their age group has a direct correlation to super-fueled ministry to teens.

In fact, passivitiy is one of the harshest drawbacks to the hiring of any staff members at any position. Teachers feel teaching is covered, singers feel worship is covered, youth leaders feel youth ministry is covered, but the passivity of the "sacrificial lambs" in the congregation is perhaps the greatest loss. While we often complain about those who only want things their way, we often also lose those who don't feel hip or with it and are just fine with clamming up. All of this is often a direct result of any pastor who is a "do-er" and not an "enabler".

The other thing that we as youth ministers often like to forget is the simple fact that youth ministry is very rarely effective. Ouch! Of course, my more careful colleagues will be quick to point out to me that "effective" is not a good word to use in ministry. After all, ministry should not be results-driven, but might simply be God planting seeds in the hearts of kids. Given, but those who take a quick inventory of kids they graduated five years ago from their programs are often very, very humbled by the fact that many of those have wandered to other churches or often from the faith completely. If our goal as youth pastors is to keep our kids in the pews from cradle to grave, then most of us would admit that we are failing greatly.

One of the reasons for this phenomenon is that youth ministry has been a narrow-scoped concept from the very beginning. The Church as a whole was losing people to the world at a near-record pace and we needed to do something. The most logical something was to stop the obvious bleeding - our teenagers who were uninterested in church and rebelling because, well, they're teenagers. What youth ministry has accomplished in that respect is a delayed exodus, with the Church now maintaining huge numbers of high school students, but losing huge percentages in the first couple years following graduation. Those who even dare attempt college-aged ministries are frustrated by kids that are uninterested in developing their faith past the music-festival experiences of their local youth group.

Another reason that the scope should be considered narrow is that science does not support our most common conviction: that high school is the most formative time in a person's life with regard to faith commitment. Psychology and research clearly indicate that the most formative time for faith development and commitment, for whatever reason, is much earlier. To this end, ministry focuses have continued to get younger-reaching. Many churches have developed Jr. High ministries, and many churches have hired Children's pastors. Research indicates that the largest percentage of people make a faith commitment in the 4th-6th grade range and the percentage gets exponentially less each year after that. We missed the target.

Churches that do have successful educational programs outside of Sunday morning worship are churches that do not gap their ministries. While this is true for the developmental ages we've just talked about, it is just as true for adult ministries which are often lacking or non-existent in many churches. Some black eyes that many churches don't want people to see: junior high ministry, post-high/college-aged ministry, singles ministry, new believers ministry. All of us should do a self-inspection to see that our overall ministries do not suffer because of one ministry. A wise speaker I once heard commented that the devil can use church programming by setting one program against another or creating an idolatry in one program or another. For instance, if hiring a full-time youth pastor means cutting three other ministries, perhaps the motivation is poorly founded. This is true not only in your local church, but in denominational programming, funding and ciriculum development, as well as other tell-tale signs. We in youth ministry need a slice of humble pie, sometimes, as we drain our congregations of volunteer hours and resources that could be used for other purposes. How can we promote holism in our churches which promotes the good of the community for the benefit of everyone?

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

A Foot-Washing Hierarchy

I haven't been on the job very long at my new Church of God family in Greenville, but the entirety of my two months in this denomination has taught me vast things about differences and similarities between it and my previous two denominational experiences (Christian Reformed and PCUSA).

First and foremost, my experience thus far has further engrained in me the utter silliness of denominational differences. Some people find me to be wacky, unorthodox or impractical when I make statements like that, but its the truth. Greenville is very similar to Salem, NY, the city I served in a couple years ago, and similar to many cities in this nation right now, from many accounts. The fact of the matter is that the Church is in the dying minority in so many cities across our nation, whether we will admit it or not. Some of these cities, like Salem and Greenville, have this to a more advanced extent than others. Its hard to believe that a city 30 minutes from Grand Rapids could have such a small population of Christians, but my initial estimates put this city at about 1 in 15 weekly attending Christians.

1 in 15.

What that means, in conjunction with the massive poverty and job loss in our community, is that we have no choice but to bond together. Unfortunately, it is often the tough times that cause our bonding, but it is bonding nonetheless. I meet monthly with a group of youth pastors who span Lutheran, Catholic, Congregational, Orthodox Presbyterian, Non-Denominational, and myself from the Church of God. Our pastor is involved in similar groups which do similar sorts of ecumenical ministry. We need eachother and the rest of the denominational world will figure that out at some point, I know. One more point for comparison. Having been intimately involved with my past 3 congregations, West Hebron, Calvary, and Greenville First, I am willing to make the bold statement that, minus infant baptism & Catechism references, the worship, the confession, the committee structures, and even the sermons would be interchangeable at face value. That's quite a statement in and of itself - and its not one I made, rather it is one they are each making to the world, implictly ecumenical if not explicity.

Enough of a prologue. The real point of this blog is to affirm something in the Church of God that I am both fascinated with and covet for my own faith tradition in the Reformed faith: hierarchy. If you are a good modern Calvinist, you'll regard what I just said as a cuss word. After all, that's what we split from! We hated the corruption that Catholic hierarchy brought. We were even disdained at Luther's holdover, and more recently, the Anglicans/Episcopalians. However, what we gained by eliminating that hierarchy is burning out pastors today at an alarming rate not only in the CRC, but in others like her who leave pastors of churches as lone rangers.

A contrast is helpful. Church groups in the Church of God in the US are done by state. It helps to have a large enough denomination to do this, but its the geographical thought that counts. So far, there's an analogy in the classical system of the CRC. As opposed to the typical classis, however, whose meetings last for a morning on a Saturday, State General Assembly meetings are a two-day event with live worship, fellowship and pastoral education. The state affiliation goes far beyond this two-day event, however. The state hires its own staff. We have a state pastor, a state youth pastor, and numerous other employees that facilitate the work of the individual congregations. Underneath the state pastor are several regional pastors who look after and mind pastors at churches as well as serving their own.

One of the key benefits of this system is that pastors are not left out to dry. Most pastors start as associate pastors with a bachelor's degree working under an experienced pastor. Some go to seminary, but some move straight on to ordination. Whoa! People need seminary! Really? How much do you know about St. Augustine or others in the middle ages who became pastors by mentorship or apprenticing. Just a conspiracy theory to try on for size: Could it be that non-hierarchical traditions need seminaries as a buffer because toughness is essential since once these students achieve ordination they are on their own? A seminary student is now judged ready for ministry by a psychologist's recommendations, rather than an apprenticeship. Calvin Seminary recently abandoned its traditional 2 concurrent years and 1 year internship field education requirements for a Lilly-dictated 15 weeks of real pastoral experience before ordination. 15 weeks before we set pastors loose in the church!

15 weeks.

This is not to say the CRC isn't making moves in this direction. It has to. In my estimation, that need will grow if we refuse to apprentice our young pastors with different levels of readiness. The CRC has created a Pastor-Church Relations office and an initiative called Sustaining Pastoral Excellence which provides opportunities for mentorship, peer learning, and continuing education. Unfortunately, these are still very optional. My home classis recently hired a part-time classical youth coordinator, which is an inspired move for a classis of small churches. We must acknowledge the benefits of regionalization and localization of ministries within the denomination. We're beginning to see it, but I want to point out the beauty of the Church of God's structure. No pastor is a lone ranger: they cannot be. I am thankful to be a part of both traditions during formative years as a young pastor. May our future pastors be open to this kind of molding.

Friday, December 08, 2006

Inbred Worship

A few friends of mine back at Dordt have a blog called What Grinds our Gears. If I had to write an entry about what grinds my gears, its problems with worship events in churches. This is particularly important to me now in my new job as Pastor of Worship at my church. We're starting to throw around a new term these days in our worship meetings: inbred worship. This is no slam on my wife or anybody from northern Michigan, its a term we use to stop ourselves from the temptation of making worship ours. This blog assumes Biblical worship categories and considerations....don't jump on my back unless you're attacking the actual text here.

There is a large temptation in the Christian worship arena that wants to make worship something that belongs to us. A current mission statement might look something like this: Worship is done by our congregation, with our congregation, and by our congregation for the benefit of our congregation in the context of our congregation. Ouch. The problem with this is, obviously, that it doesn't make room for God. Of course, we would all claim that our worship is for God, unless we're way out of line. But worship planning and practice quickly becomes a circle we enclose ourself within.

For example, as a worship planner, I'm in charge of reading our context. Then, I'm in charge of creating a relevant worship service. I pick songs I like (or I wrote) or that I think would "speak the congregation's language". After that, I go to worship and benefit greatly from the service. If its done right, my evaluation tells me we did a great job!

My worship class is attempting to teach us out of that idea. It said, lets not ask what worship can do for people, but how we can equip believers. Great idea. However, while we're equipping believers, here comes a non-believer. What are equipping them to do? Find Jesus, hopefully. But what kind of sermon equips believers and altar calls? I ain't got one of those on my computer.

In order to make worship that's not inbred, we should allow doors in our circle for entrance. These doors can be things like a gospel presentation in every service (not hoping for people to glean it off of our ritual). Another way is a highly accountable worship staff. I'm in the process of recruiting music people and non-music people to serve as service critiquers. Grandpa Frank who's plowed fields his whole life can be as good an evaluater of my service as Mrs. Jones who teaches music for a living. Why? Only asking music people about your music is back to the inbred. Its like one of those concerts where the choir does lots of really musically cool things, but the audience hates it because its completely irrelevant.

This isn't just music. Its preaching, its kids ministry, its offertories. Our prostrate nature in worship should limit our ultimate control over it.