05.08.08
tentmaking in a digital age
A summary of the church on mission from Transforming Mission by David Bosch.
“A community of people who, in the face of the tribulations they encounter, keep their eyes steadfastly on the reign of God by praying for its coming, by being its disciples, by proclaiming its presence, by working for peace and justice in the midst of hatred and oppression, and by looking and working toward God’s liberating future.†(54) Bosch
My wife and I have been in various forms of ministry for most of our 21 year marriage, and of course individually before that. To this date, neither of us has been a paid worker in ekklesial based ministry.
I have tended to feel proud of that; I’m not sure that I should. But as I was driving home from a coffee conversation today, I began to reflect on what has brought me to this place in my convictions about paid ministry, and why I think this should be an issue for further debate and reflection as we reimagine the church in this post-Christendom and missional context.
My starting point comes from the letters and life of Paul. Paul, the greatest of the Apostles, if we measure his ongoing impact and his output of letters to early Christian communities, continued to work in “secular” employment, working with his hands as a tentmaker. In spite of his equivalent in those days to a doctorate, and in spite of our continued tendency to place “full time” workers on a pedestal in comparison to part time or unsupported workers, Paul seemed to think that his duality of focus was NOT really a dual or divided focus at all. One has to wonder “why not?” What was different in his thinking about the gospel and leadership and culture?
After twenty five years in a variety of churches and ekklesial expressions, after sharing space on a number of leadership teams, having attended four different seminaries, and with somewhere around forty friends in full-time ministry, I think I can make some observations and guesses toward an answer. In these words it may seem I intend to indict my friends who are paid for their ministry. I do not presume to judge them. Some of them are more gracious, and more sacrificial in their living for Jesus than am I. They are quite often “the best of the best” and I am honored to know them.
The issues, however, are real and will become more important in coming years. Here are some thoughts about the problems inherent in professional ministry.
1. Ekklesial leaders are subject to a problem inherent in professional classes similar to “group-think.” Perhaps this is merely a certain cultural conditioning that results when we form real friendships only with those within our class. We are “helpers” to “helpees.” We are “answer-men” and women. We are the visionaries and don’t expect vision to come from other sources. Worse.. we start believing that only professional workers are really adequate as “ministers of the new covenant.” I know something about this mindset, and it only seems possible to avoid it when Christian workers maintain real connection with the “secular” world of work and rub shoulders with “ordinary” people making do in ordinary .. and sometimes amazing.. ways.
2. While we maintain a theology that is based on equality under Christ, and a conviction about the priesthood of all believers, we tend to practice something different. We don’t recognize the way our leadership and ekklesial practices reinforce the difference and perpetuate dependence on hierarchy and position. The outcome is really negative and we complain about it without seeing our systemic complicity: we limit effective ministry to 10 to 20% of our faith communities and the balance are passive or come to practice an inward and personal spirituality divorced from the rest of life.
I believe Paul’s practice implies an answer and a position very different than our common practice. He realizes that our imaginations are formed by what we observe more than by theological positions. As a result, he practices non-professional ministry. In doing so he validates ministry in all forms, and avoids the connection we have made in modern western culture between salary and position and authority.
My basic stance is this: If I take a salary for the work I do for Christ, then how can I in good conscience ask someone else to make the kingdom of God their priority in all their waking hours apart from payment or ekklesial ordination? On the contrary, if I make God’s kingdom my priority in all that I do, and even sacrifice some income to give my time in service, then I have a real basis on which to ask others to make that sacrifice. The potential is the release of workers in the kingdom at all levels and in every place. It is the most practical affirmation of a functional universal priesthood that is possible, perhaps.
Now, given the rapidly shifting economic realities in the western world, we are approaching a time when it will not be possible to fund Christian workers as readily as we have done. We are going to need living examples of a different approach to ministry, driven by a different imagination about the relation between leadership and authority and stipends. Concretely, this amounts to a lot less concern about financial rewards, retirement, and status. It also means finding ways to make theological conversation and learning available to those who have less time and money to devote to those pursuits. That is one of the reasons I have had great interest in the ATC.
As we make this transition, we are going to need teams of ekklesial and ex-ekklesial leaders who practice something we haven’t seen. We will need teams where there is visible equality between leaders who are paid, and leaders who are not paid. I don’t know of many places that have attempted this, other than some Plymouth Brethren settings, and rumor has it, CLA in Langley.
Three years ago I ran across an excerpt from Mark Strom’s book, “Reframing the Conversation with Paul,” and I was stunned at his clarity. Mark attempted to address what he saw in our western ekklesial contexts, and he addresses the issues as impacting the very heart of the Gospel. Mark wrote,
“Professionalism, even elitism, marks the sermon and the service and distinguishes clergy from congregation. Paul faced something similar at Corinth. The strong had transferred to themselves certain social and religious marks of rank and status: education, eloquence, a leader”s style, even clothing. They had also come to regard the fruits of Christ’s work by the Spirit and the evidences of his presence as further marks of status, even â€spiritual” status. Paul would not tolerate this creation of new rank within the assembly. He urged the Corinthians to see what they had as gifts of grace. They must honour the least honourable. This was not conventional. This was not moral. This was not theology. This was not about words. This was the meaning of grace.
“Little in modern Christian experience matches this. Academic, congregational and denominational life functions along clear lines of rank, status and honour. We preach that the gospel has ended elitism, but we rarely allow the implications to go beyond ideas. Paul, however, actually stepped down in the world. His inversions of status were social realities, not intellectualized reforms.
“Paul urged leaders to imitate his personal example of how the message of Jesus inverted status. He was at pains to dissociate himself from the sophists, those traveling orator-teacher-lawyers of his day (1 Cor 2:1-5). Though undoubtedly educated and skilled, he did not imitate the sophists” eloquence and persona. In so doing, Paul set himself on a collision course with the contemporary conventions of personal honour and with his potential patrons. He refused to show favouritism towards individuals or ekklesiai. The gospel offered him rights, but he refused them. Christ was not a means to a career. Yet the agendas and processes of maintaining and reforming evangelical life and thought remain the domain of professional scholars and clergy. Their ministry is their career.
“Dying and rising with Christ meant status reversal. In Paul”s case, he deliberately stepped down in the world. We must not romanticize this choice. He felt the shame of it amongst his peers and potential patrons, yet held it as the mark of his sincerity. Moreover, it played a critical role in the interplay of his life and thought. Tentmaking was critical, even central, to his life and message. His labour and ministry were mutually explanatory. Yet, for most of us, â€tent-making” belongs in the realms of missionary journals and far-flung shores. As a model for ministry in the USA, Britain or Australia, it remains as unseemly to most of us as it did to the Corinthians. At best it is second best.
“Evangelicalism will not shake its abstraction, idealism and elitism until theologians and clergy are prepared to step down in their worlds. Some might argue that since the world often shows contempt for the pastoral role, then professional ministry is a step back. But that is to ignore the more pertinent set of social realities. Evangelicalism has its own ranks, careers, financial security, marks of prestige, and rewards. Within that world, professional ministry is rank and status.â€
Related: The Evolution of the Clergy from Missional Church
robin dugall said,
May 8, 2008 at 10:32 am
Hey there…GREAT post…I’m going to cut and paste it and send it to some of my pals in the journey. You nailed a number of my feelings…almost like you are living inside of my head. Dangerous words…have you posted on Allelon yet with this? You should!
Peace – Robin
Geoff said,
May 8, 2008 at 11:26 am
I agree completely. I’m realizing more and more that I am passionate about ministry, but I love the connection of being “in the world” to support myself. It’s not how I ever thought my ministry would unfold, but it is also quite freeing!
The thing I wrestle with is that those I know (except a few) can’t grasp the fact I am not “giving myself to full time ministry”. Seems that living your live as a minstry has taken a back seat!
microclesia » Blog Archive » Tentmaking said,
May 8, 2008 at 11:41 am
[...] When did Christian communities start paying “religious leaders”? Hint – it’s not something you’ll find in the New Testament. When did we get off track? Read more of Len’s deeply considered thoughts. [...]
Mike Croghan said,
May 8, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Len, this is excellent. Thanks.
Regarding this paragraph:
“As we make this transition, we are going to need teams of ekklesial and ex-ekklesial leaders who practice something we haven’t seen. We will need teams where there is visible equality between leaders who are paid, and leaders who are not paid. I don’t know of many places that have attempted this, other than some Plymouth Brethren settings, and rumor has it, CLA in Langley.?”
I think we do this in the church community I’m a part of, Common Table. We’ve had a leadership team of three for years, and that team recently went from 2/3 staff to 2/3 volunteer, since one of our staff members switched to volunteer service late last year. But our staff members (formerly two, now one) have never been paid much – “half time” on a salary that’s tiny compared to cost-of-living in the Washington, DC area – so they’ve always had to be “tentmakers” even though they get a salary (Mike S. works as a caretaker/handyman/carpenter and a college prof; Deanna teaches fitness classes and has now gone back to working as a systems engineer) – and their families have also always depended on their spouses’ income.
But anyway, as the one current member of our leadership team who has never been on staff, I certainly feel like we’ve always had visible equality – and that extends to the many leaders in our church who are neither on staff nor on LT. We’re by no means perfect, but what I really want to say is: IMHO, this WORKS. It works beautifully. It’s effective for formation (of all of us), for equipping of more priests and ministers (that is, everybody), and for honoring and developing the many and diverse gifts God has given each of us. We share responsibility and we share work and we share vision and we share joy and crap and BS and all that good and evil stuff. And it’s fun.
Anyway, thanks, Len, for this post.
Peace,
Mike Croghan
len said,
May 8, 2008 at 2:49 pm
MIke, you are blessed.. and you will have something to teach us who haven’t yet been there..
len said,
May 8, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Incidentally, this post was quite a bit longer before a serious edit. One of the things I omitted was the whole problem of paying someone to speak truth to us.. truth that is often uncomfortable, and may threaten the position and salary and popularity of the speaker. I omitted it in part because the problem persists whether we pay teachers/leaders or not. And in part because a more fundamental issue is how we get from where we are .. with a clunky, hierarchical system.. to true communities of leaders and learners, where leadership may in fact be a characteristic of the system rather than fixed roles. Whew.. we are a huge distance away from this experience in most places. Thank God that some have pioneered for us, like Church of the Savior and others you may know.. Now some links..
Gordon Cosby .. a different take on ordination
http://nextreformation.com/wp-admin/general/daily-mssn.htm
Outstanding piece on ldrship by a female Friends teaching elder
http://nextreformation.com/wp-admin/articles/ministers.htm
Sarx » Seminary (2)… said,
May 8, 2008 at 5:22 pm
[...] Further to my earlier post on Seminary as a bridge to a high-paying job, and with props to Mike, I find this post on tentmaking in the digital age Ekklesial leaders are subject to a problem inherent in professional classes similar to “group-think.” Perhaps this is merely a certain cultural conditioning that results when we form real friendships only with those within our class. We are “helpers” to “helpees.” We are “answer-men” and women. We are the visionaries and don’t expect vision to come from other sources. Worse.. we start believing that only professional workers are really adequate as “ministers of the new covenant.” I know something about this mindset, and it only seems possible to avoid it when Christian workers maintain real connection with the “secular” world of work and rub shoulders with “ordinary” people making do in ordinary .. and sometimes amazing.. ways. [...]
nathan said,
May 9, 2008 at 6:43 am
Interesting…challenging…
I have to wonder though if there is a middle way that acknowledges that some–that’s the key word, some–theologians, etc. live in an ivory tower, but that there is a profound challenge and calling to empower/equip the Church, and that necessarily means that it could “feel” like people are “elitist”.
The fact of the matter is that, in general, those of us with a theological education actually do know more than the average Christian and we have a responsibility to serve the Church with it. I don’t get why people resent this and feel like this is elitist.
We don’t resent our doctors because they know more about our health.
We don’t resent our mechanic because she knows more about our cars.
We don’t resent our realtors because they know more about housing markets.
You get my point.
It ends up feeling like I have to apologize for my education.
I love the idea of calling people out of their arrogance and ivory towers, but I always get nervous when this conversation comes up because it inevitably is grabbed a hold of by people who refuse to do the needed work to lead, care for, and empower people effectively and responsibly.
Honestly, I’m torn by this…
Peggy said,
May 9, 2008 at 9:50 am
Len,
I had to let this one sit for a while … it is way too close to my reality. I find it very interesting (God has such a tremendous sense of humor) that I took a 20 year path to reach ordination and, finally, paid pastoral ministry at a large church (2,000 ish), only to leave after five years and receive the vision for CovenantClusters and meet up with Alan Hirsch and Neil Cole and you and so many others … and, basically, totally walk away from that paradigm. What a trip!
Nathan,
FWIW (which may be not much because you don’t know me!), when you said:
“The fact of the matter is that, in general, those of us with a theological education actually do know more than the average Christian and we have a responsibility to serve the Church with it. I don’t get why people resent this and feel like this is elitist.”
It struck right where I’m processing with the church where I was on staff. The problem of trust is not when someone is educated to a higher level, but more when the perception thrives that only those with such education have something to teach. And it gets even worse when those with much knowledge do not have much evidence of fruit in their lives that shows the diligent application of their knowledge.
…not to say that this is your personal situation, now!!!!
I believe that when we do not actively LISTEN and find a way to value EVERY VOICE for its perspective and contribution, then we lose truth and trust.
And when you compare expert knowledge of theology with doctors and mechanics and realtors there is something of a disconnect. This is because the very Spirit of God comes to dwell in the hearts of all those who name Christ as Lord and teaches them what it means to grow toward being like Christ. The life of a Christ-follower is essentially simple obedience to the call to love God and love others. One does not HAVE to have all the specific theological knowledge available to be obedient to love in one’s circumstances.
The incredible intricacies of being a doctor or mechanic or realtor have less “competition”, as it were. Although, my role as Doctor Mom sometimes rises up against the “knowledge” of doctors … and my experience of what my car is supposed to sound or feel like sometimes rises up against the “knowledge” of mechanics. And when the doctors and mechanics do not listen to me with respect in order to gain understanding into my situation, they will be less effective in serving me and meeting my needs … and it may cost me more money and suffering than necessary.
Any expert on anything that attempts to assume or compel trust by reason of their superior knowledge or experience or whatever will be disappointed when they are not followed … been there, done that!
The key to your statement is in the serving of the Body of Christ, in order to equip them mature in Christ and to embrace the call to do the work of ministry. Too often the expert knowledge of church leaders leads to immaturity and dependence of the people — that effectively inoculates them from sensing the need to step up to offer their gifts for the edification of the Body.
My experience has been that the most brilliant of the learned theologians are only truly effective as teachers and leaders through their incredible humility and transparent humanity and generous availability — so much so that it is virtually impossible to perceive them as elitist.
In the 3rd chapter of James, he warns: “Don’t be in any rush to become a teacher, my friends. Teaching is highly responsible work. Teachers are held to the strictest standards. And none of us is perfectly qualified.” (The Message) He goes on to end the chapter contrasting knowledge with wisdom … and we all know that head knowledge doesn’t always translate to practical wisdom … and the paradox still exists that God is in the habit of using the simple to confound the wise.
Sorry for the length! But this is exactly where I’m swimming — and the waters are shark infested! ;^)
len said,
May 9, 2008 at 11:28 am
Good discussion people, this conversation will become more important in coming years I think, and it’s good to hear one another.
Mike Croghan said,
May 9, 2008 at 11:32 am
Hi Nathan,
I hear what you’re saying, and I completely agree that painting folks with a broad brush is folly, but I have to agree with Peggy – and perhaps disagree with you – if (and I’m not sure this is the case) you’re equating an advanced theology degree with “the needed work to lead, care for, and empower people effectively and responsibly”. I’m sorry, but a Master’s or Doctorate in Theology, Ministry, or Divinity is not needed in order to do those things. Those degrees can be an asset, certainly (though IMHO they can also be a hindrance). But in my opinion, the fundamental requirements for effective leadership, pastoral care, and equipping are a) Spiritual gifting in those areas, and b) careful discernment in community and obedience to God’s calling.
Now, if someone has (a) and (b) but remains embarrassingly ignorant of Scripture, theology, liturgy, etc., then that person is severely limiting their effectiveness in living out their calling (and probably not really exercising the obedience required by (b)). Clearly some education in those matters is required. But I know plenty of gifted and effective ministers, pastors, preachers, teachers, evangelists, etc. whose theological education stops far short of a Master’s Degree.
In my opinion, ministry is not like the professions you mention – those professions routinely (every hour of every day on the job) require specialized knowledge and skill that the lay person lacks. Ministry, by contrast, primarily requires Spiritual gifting and obedience, which plays out in such activities as listening, building relationships, encouraging, guiding, serving, story-telling, sacrificing, etc. Advanced knowledge sometimes comes in handy in those tasks, but not in the way a doctor or mechanic has to have advanced knowledge of human anatomy or internal combustion engines every moment they’re doing their job.
I think ministry is more like cooking than it is like medicine or auto mechanics. Just about everybody can – and should! – learn to cook. It certainly requires learning – we aren’t born cooks, and there are certainly terrible cooks. And there are certainly folks whose apogee of cooking is making a mean grilled cheese sandwich.
And then there are 5-star chefs. And thank God for the chefs! Praise God for the chefs. We certainly need chefs, with their advanced degrees and envelope-pushing experimentation in new forms of culinary goodness, and with their ability to teach the rest of us and equip us to be better cooks. We generally don’t resent chefs (I do know some who find Rachel Ray annoying), nor should we. And we definitely can’t, and shouldn’t, all be chefs. But darn it, pretty much everybody can learn to make a mean grilled cheese sandwich, or to cook well enough to feed their family and a bunch of friends. And plenty of people become really, really amazing cooks without ever shelling out for a cooking degree.
Anyway, that’s what I think.
Peace,
Croghan
nathan said,
May 9, 2008 at 11:46 am
I don’t think I’m in any essential disagreement with you. (And btw, I do appreciate a considered response such as yours…who cares if it’s long? This is important. So thank you!)
Again, I don’t think I’m in disagreement, and as far as being loving/obedient, etc. I would agree about the accessibility and simplicity of that.
However, I do think that theological education that helps shed light on the significance of the weight of 2000 years of theological reflection or the proper historical/literary/cultural contexts of certain texts is an expertise that does require a kind of “submission’ on the part of a community.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, but I’ve yet to see the Spirit download the insights of biblical scholarship to a person that help interpret Scripture responsibly or understand the witness of the community of faith over the ages.
I think that’s what I’m talking about in a world where too many folk mangle the Scriptures for their own political/cultural agendas with really ham-handed readings all in the name of the leading of the Spirit of God.
That’s a deep concern for me…and I hope to bring to bear my theological education so people can make informed, responsible uses of the texts in their search/journey to follow Jesus.
I just don’t buy that because some folks have demanded submission on the basis of their theological education means we should go helter-skelter the other way…(which is not what I think you’re necessarily doing!)
So…when it comes to understanding how to negotiate with the primary source of our reflection on God, I think there is a real signficance to theological education and to recognize it and submit to its insights is not a bad thing.
Fruit in the life of those with theological knowledge is an issue of credibility, but not necessarily always indicative of the accuracy or wisdom of their offerings.
I could be a real jerk, and still be correct about certain theological realities that are pretty key to the health and direction of any given community of faith.
Tone and content, they go hand in hand, but I don’t think people have the right to offload or downplay the substance of something just because they don’t like the packaging it came in. In fact, I think to do so, while understandable, is really kind of immature. (again, not saying you’re doing this.)
These things take discernment not swinging pendulums.
And I think we aren’t taking seriously the impulse of humans to dominate others…we can shoot down the “leaders” because their humanity is on display, but we forget that sometimes a community needs to be protected from itself and its impulse to dominate.
Bottom line…Shepherds should sacrificially love the sheep. We’re called to it in the scriptures. But that doesn’t mean letting sheep lead shepherds.
The body can’t say between its parts “I don’t need you”, but there still are eyes that show the hand where to reach and feet where to step. They aren’t elitist. They just are.
I don’t know if I’m being clear, or making this more murky, but I appreciate your response and your willingness to listen.
nathan said,
May 9, 2008 at 12:09 pm
another thing…I agree that a degree isn’t a guarantor of anything in a calling, but, frankly, I’ve seen more damage done by uneducated pastors with good intentions than a high-minded ivory tower genius.
People will just leave the guy who makes them feel stupid…they’ll go to another church where, hopefully, they’ll get the best of both worlds.
I just don’t think it’s fair to set up the “holy Spirit” and “callings” over and against the clear benefits of some kind of training. Just watch some Christian television and you’ll see “successful”, “fruitful” pastors mangling and doing violence to the texts and people are making decisions about how to live their lives based on those mangled misuses. I just don’t buy that there isn’t a clear correspondence to the kinds of expertise we’re talking about.
(Although, I do LOVE the chef analogy. I just don’t think the Church is only a place for wonderful, homey, and democratic grilled cheese–as comforting and accessible as that can be. A diet of it will leave you where I stand today: fat and ultimately unhealthy. Now that I think about it more, there isn’t a disconnect here about the value of leaders/education, etc. It’s really a disconnect about what is the church supposed to be.)
Even the people I’ve worked with without formal education who were effective, pastoral, etc. all were voracious learners, devouring every piece of knowledge they could get their hands on to help them in their pursuit of God….
Then again, you have a guy like Ray Comfort, from Way of the Master, whose biographical material declares his lack of education. Not to be uncharitable, but it really shows.
AGain, there’s no guarantees, but wouldn’t you still want some kind of input/training/etc. in the people who end up “facilitating” or “leading” or “guiding”?
Peggy said,
May 9, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I don’t think it needs to be an either / or situation.
Yes, we all want to be life long learners. And it is important to have “learned” folk helping us all learn. But I have seen a tremendous amount of damage done in churches / institutions where those with “learning” wield their power in ways that are tantamount to spiritual abuse. There are many kinds of institutions that teach a variety of kinds of doctrine … and sometimes folks get carried away in what I would suggest are the “non-essentials” or “opinions” — majoring in the minors — rather that sticking with the main thing around the “essentials”.
This is one of the fabulous things about the internet — we get to see into the lives and experiences of others and give breadth to our own understanding!
And even those with great, balanced, essential knowledge … if you don’t approach teaching and leading and shepherding with a sense of submission to the Holy Spirit and a true humility and appreciation for what the Holy Spirit is doing in the lives of others, frankly, I see a rocky road.
Many have suggested that all good “under-shepherds” seek to point toward the Good Shepherd and see themselves as sheep still….
During my time on the mission field — 30 years ago — I was part of a congregation of 300 or so that was made up of mostly English-speaking missionaries. We came together for fellowship and feeding on Sunday evenings after working with our tribal congregations in the morning. Can you imagine the task of shepherding those shepherds? God blessed us with a fabulous retired Australian mission and his wife…and they were the salt of the earth and a cup of cold water in Jesus’ name to us.
Yup — both as educated as possible and as inclusive and humble as possible. It’s possible, but it takes lots of work!
Shalom.
Mike Croghan said,
May 9, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Hi Nathan,
Just a brief response: I don’t think we’re far apart, really – I just think that you have more confidence than I do in the value of formal education in ensuring effective ministry. As you’ve mentioned, you have experience with uneducated pastors doing damage and theological education being an antidote for that. By contrast, I’ve encountered quite a few well-educated yet (IMHO) ineffective church leaders, while I know a lot of folks who are very effective in various church leadership roles but who lack advanced theological degrees. (I will admit, however, that they do tend to be the voracious informal learners of which you speak.) Our backgrounds influence out points of view, which is only natural.
I’ll also say: I think you’re right that if we do have a disagreement, it probably has more to do with our concepts of the nature and purpose of the Church, as opposed to our estimation of the value of education. But like I said, I’m doubtful that we’re really that far apart.
Peace,
Croghan
nathan said,
May 9, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Thank you, everyone.
This has been fodder much thought for me.
I appreciate the honest, civil and stimulating dialogue.
Makes me wish we were all in the same community…regardless of how its organized, etc. =)
Again, thanks!
p.s. Mike, I meandered over to your blog. Your interest in Anglican intrigues me. I’m Anglican, and I really see a healthy episcopate as something of a counter-cultural check on North American/Western/whatever individualism.
Would love to trade thoughts with you further.
peace
dave wainscott said,
May 9, 2008 at 10:25 pm
i’d pay you to restore the omitted section..i need it.
seriously, would love to read it…
might lose my salary(:
len said,
May 12, 2008 at 9:02 am
dave, lol.. well, not saved.. but its up in my brain somewhere. Ok, maybe I’ll do a third section on this yet..
len said,
May 15, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Some more helpful discussion when I posted this here..
http://www.allelon.org/missional_journey/