| Commissioned Lay Pastors: Second-tier or top-rung leaders? |
| Written by Leslie Scanlon, Outlook national reporter | ||||||||||||||||||
| Monday, 19 April 2010 01:27 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Louisville. Barbara Wheeler, director of the Center for the Study of Theological Education at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York, has a knack for laying hard issues directly before the Presbyterian church – and encouraging it to push for better ways of doing ministry. Recently she’s been igniting conversation about the role that commissioned lay pastors play in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) – and through that, raising broader issues about leadership and strategies for mission. What original vision led to the idea that the church should have CLPs? How has that played out over the last 15 years – what kind of work are commissioned lay pastors actually doing at the grassroots level of the church? What kind of training do CLPs receive? Are they considered “second-tier clergy” – and if so, what are the implications for ministry? Or is there another way of looking at things that would better serve both the needs of congregations, many of them small and unable to afford a full-time pastor, and of people who haven’t gone to seminary, but who have real gifts and skills for serving the church? Wheeler is raising these questions in part because the leadership of the PC(USA) is asking them too. In 2007, the denomination’s Office of Vocation along with the Committee on Theological Education, commissioned a two-part study on CLPs. One part involved a survey, conducted by the PC(USA)’s Research Services, of executive presbyters about how presbyteries use CLPs. And the Center for the Study of Theological Education was asked to gather information about how CLPs are prepared for their work, and about what those providing the training see as the strengths and weaknesses of that work. To do that, Wheeler collected information from 21 programs, including those based in seminaries, in presbyteries, and in partnerships serving a group of presbyteries. Wheeler recently presented some of the findings of that research to a joint meeting of the General Assembly Mission Council and the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly. In a denomination in which the majority of congregations are small, and in which seminary graduates are having difficulty finding calls, it’s clear that questions of how to find affordable, trained pastoral leadership remain pressing and on the minds of many. South Louisiana Presbytery, for example, has sent an overture to this year’s General Assembly asking that the role of commissioned lay pastors be expanded to allow for a commissioned lay pastor at-large – allowing that person to celebrate the sacraments in a number of congregations in a presbytery and to serve his or her own congregation, if it has a pastor, in a role “somewhat similar to a parish associate,” the overture states. “Given the current reality that many of our smaller-member congregations are unable to afford the services of a commissioned lay pastor, even if one were available in or near the community, much less a minister of the Word and Sacrament, it is incumbent upon the denomination to provide avenues where these congregations may be served by trained laity, especially for celebration of the sacraments,” the overture states. It describes that arrangement as a “visible expression” of the Reformed teaching regarding the “priesthood of all believers.” Another overture, from Hudson River Presbytery, seeks to extend an understanding that CLPs could be commissioned to serve in validated ministries as well as to particular congregations. Shifting roles In her presentation, Wheeler explained the PC(USA)’s history with commissioned lay pastors. In 1995, she said, the assembly, with the assent of the presbyteries, “approved a major upgrade of the role of commissioned lay pastor.” And doing so “was a big step for Presbyterians, who for more than two centuries have been the standard-bearer of stringent educational requirements for ministry.” There was a lot of debate over what should happen – and in the end, Wheeler said, the denomination was swayed by the understanding that CLPs could meet some critical needs. Immigrant fellowships needed pastors who spoke their language and understood their culture. And small churches in rural areas – Alaska and Appalachia often were referenced as examples – couldn’t necessarily afford to hire full-time pastors, and sometimes couldn’t find tentmakers, because local jobs were so scarce. The thinking at the time was that each presbytery would have its own training program for CLPs, and that the programs would vary from place to place, she said. Today, some 15 years later, things look considerably different from what was first imagined. Most presbyteries use CLPs – the Research Services study found about three-fourths of them did. And they’re using them in ways different from what was originally imagined, Wheeler said. » Most serve small churches as solo pastors. But often those congregations are not geographically isolated – they’re in all sorts of settings, including cities, suburbs, and small towns. » CLPs also work in a variety of settings – including as chaplains in nursing homes and prisons, and, in about one-tenth of the presbyteries, as associate pastors. » The fewest number of CLPs work in the settings that were first envisioned for them – with immigrant fellowships or racial-ethnic congregations. The research found patterns as well in how CLPs are trained. Presbyteries have found it’s too expensive and difficult to offer their own training programs, so most now use training programs offered by colleges or seminaries, or work in partnership with other presbyteries or synods. “Most programs now look remarkably alike,” Wheeler said. Typically there are eight components, based on the Book of Order language – with courses in Old Testament, New Testament, Reformed theology (with sacraments added in either there or in the worship component), polity, preaching, Christian education, worship, and pastoral care, with some ethics mixed in. A few require field placement or practical theology or an occasional elective. Most training programs involve about 130 contact hours – roughly the equivalent of three college classes, Wheeler said. Participants usually must read several hundred pages of material and write at least one paper as well. Usually, everyone who completes the coursework is given a passing grade, she said. Those findings led Wheeler to ask Presbyterian leaders some questions – questions not about what is now, but what makes sense for the future: Does the denomination have the right curriculum for training CLPs? Typically each of the eight topics is given equal weight, although “surely experience has taught us that CLPs need more of some this subject matter” and perhaps less of others – and maybe need to learn some things not in the Book of Order categories. Wheeler suggested instructing the PC(USA)’s Office of Vocation to look at the research, consult with those providing the training, and suggest alternatives. Are CLPs given enough training, considering the work they’re being asked to do? “You can have a church without a building, without a budget, and without programs, but there is no church unless the Word is rightly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered,” Wheeler said. And Presbyterians have always believed that those who perform those functions must be knowledgeable. Some CLPs do come with the life experience and background in theology and Scripture to do that well, she said. “But many – I would venture most – aspirants to the role of CLPs are not already equipped to do those things,” she said. “Will three-and-a-half ungraded, introductory college courses, a retreat or two, and conversations with a mentor or supervisor make them so?” Some para-professional training courses – for physicians’ assistants, for example, are much more intense, she said – as are the requirements for certification as a Christian educator. Wheeler suggested the Office of Vocation might also be asked to make recommendations for standards for preparation and areas of study for CLPs. How should Presbyterians define the leadership provided by CLPs? In many ways, she said, they’re viewed as “second-tier clergy,” and “there is evidence that many CLPs think of themselves as approved for church-wide service,” she said. “We seem to be edging toward the creation of two classes of ministers of Word and sacrament – one with theological degrees, minimum salary and pension, the other informally educated and paid only token amounts without benefits,” Wheeler said. That raises the question of how elders should be viewed in the PC(USA), she said. One suggestion being discussed is the idea of assigning “commissioned elders,” rather than commissioned pastors -- in other words, developing the leadership potential of elders rather than seeing them as some sort of “substitute pastors,” Wheeler said. In what innovative ways can the PC(USA) assist congregations that are struggling? Wheeler told of her own congregation in a small town in upstate New York – a church, like so many others, without enough money to pay a full-time pastor. For years, the congregation shared the services of its pastor with a nearby presbytery camp – but in time, that arrangement came to an end. At about the same time, the Methodist church in town – wanting more than the part-time arrangements it had been limping along with – insisted that the bishop allow them to share a minister with the Presbyterians, or the congregants threatened to all become Presbyterian. A merger is likely, and “the chances are excellent that there will be a vital mainline Protestant congregation in our town 25 years from now,” Wheeler said. Without that arrangement, both the Methodist and Presbyterian congregations likely would have died out. Wheeler sees in this personal example an illustration of deeper challenges the PC(USA) faces. “My point is this: our denomination is making a lot of decisions about its future based on what might be called laissez-faire congregationalism,” she told the Presbyterian leaders. “We have full-scale congregations with highly-trained leadership where we have a natural constituency that can afford to pay for the privilege. Where our kind are dwindling, in numbers or resources, we offer something less, and many of the churches that get something less will not make it.” Part of the response, she contends, needs to be a different kind of conversation about where Presbyterian churches can survive – and where they cannot. “We cannot, of course, have churches everywhere, but we should make our decisions about when to go and where to stay based on missional considerations.” Wheeler said. “Is a mainline Protestant ministry in this place important? If so, how is that possible? Should we merge with other churches there in order to create a critical mass that has resources for skilled leadership? Should we, instead of trying to find some pastoral patch for every existing congregation, leave some sites to other denominations and agree with them that we will concentrate where we would be of most help?” In that conversation, she suggested, the solution can’t be always to rely on commissioned lay pastors. Wheeler said that “some CLPs do a splendid job, and they should go on doing it. But sending them on a mass basis to serve struggling churches, which is happening in some locales, may give the appearance of viable Presbyterian ministries when the reality is not there. Might it not be better to face the question of what kind of presence God wants us to have in that place sooner rather than later?” Instead of using CLPs in all those places, Wheeler is suggesting a new form of Presbyterian creativity – one that uses new styles of leadership in new configurations, with an emphasis on listening for God’s leading rather than preserving what’s there. Your Responses (9)
Rev John Elder
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Baltimore, Maryland Greetings; I only have to say this I am a minister and have been for 13 yrs but do to the fact that I did not go to college and did mine on the computer I am still not looked at as a Pastor. I pastored 2 churches in West Virginia before moving to Maryland 10 yrs ago. I attend the methodist church here and I had to go to CLS classes and i have still yet to be called on to preach anywhere. Thats ok because I know God called me into the Ministry 14 yrs ago he has blessed me in ways only he can and I am going to keep on keeping on in His way and I know he will lead me somewhere where I can be used for HIS glory |
David G. Pickett
said:
|
Vineland, NJ Having come back to PCUSA from several other traditions, I think there is a vast potential in licensed lay preachers. In UMC, it seemed almost too easy to be a Basic or even Certified Lay Preacher. Unfortunately, sometimes there is little support for this from the Ordained Clergy except manipulative: as a way to deepen ties to the church, contributions, and to sell courses. In PCUSA, must one be elected elder to be eligible for lay preaching? What has local church politics have to do with this? I think examination and apprenticeship are more effective ways to find and empower Christian leaders than educational and local-congregation or presbytery political requirements. If their theology and their heart are right, their grasp of what needs preaching and of good ministry is already in place. While education may enrich their biblical interpretation, Christianity is about love, which does not come from any book. Everyone can enrich their ministry with education, not just in scripture and theology but in psychology, language, sociology and anthropology, to deal with damaged hearts, different tongues and new cultures. Not everyone has all these challenges around them, or the same personal need for enhancement. We need to take a fresh look at this, without outdated models and traditions, with an eye to facilitating more involvement by more laity in preaching and ministry in an orderly and controlled, but not rigid and stifling way. |
John Loch
said:
|
Youngstown, Ohio When I read Dr. Wheeler's article, I immediately sat down in front of my laptop and proceeded to write a response. My response was one filled with indignation and questions regarding her assumptions. One can obviously point to the small number of courses required to become a CLP in the denomination, but those who entered into the process didn't establish the need for only eight courses -- the denominantion did. But, to look only to having been enrolled in only eight courses is a bit short-sighted, or myopic. One is able cite the Dubuque CLP Student Handbook as indicating the number of hours required to study and prepare for the respective courses, but the figures cited are in reality minimums, not maximums. Having completed the UDTS CLP program in 2006, I can attest that more than the minimum time that has been thrown into the discussion is required to complete the readings, do the assignments, and to participate fully in the online learning experiences provided by UDTS and by Pittsburgh Theological Seminary for their CLP offerings. I can attest to this having been enrolled in twelve online courses -- four beyond the requried four courses. Having spent a 42 year career in teaching and in adminstration in two universities, I know that there are students who go beyond -- "the second mile" -- and then that there are those who will stick to bare minimum. I am sure that Dr. Wheeler's seminary has experienced a few graduates who are now MSWs who might fall at both ends of the log. But, her broad-brush "tar and feathering" of CLPs lacks the depth of study that should really point the finger at her fellow teaching elders who serve on the respective presbytery committees on the preparation for the ministry. It is at the point of the examination of a prospective CLP upon completion of the required courses that the lay elders look to the MSWs on the committee to see if the preparation is sufficient. Thus, my observation would be to those casting the first stone to look in the mirror to see toward whom you are casting that stone. When the finger is pointed, interestingly, three others point back at the one pointing and making the accusation. Somewhere, I think that I read something about casting the first stone that a famous man once stated. I am sure that I fall short in many ways as a Stated Supply Pastor, but so do many pastors through their lack of understanding or to apply what they were taught while engaged in their three year stint in seminary. Through my own personal reading and study, and my participation in semi-annual pastor's retreats sponsored by the presbytery in which I am commissioned, and my ongoing participation in open seminars offered by Pittsburgh Theological Seminary's Office of Continuing Education that I strive, as I am sure the great majority of those serving as CLPs also seek to add to their knowledge of Scripture, theology, the Sacraments, and to improve their preaching skills and abilities. Yes, I lived in the higher education community as a teacher and as an administrator for forty-two years, and earned the Ph.D. in a non-theological discipline, but none of that creates a millstone around my neck, but rather, I think, it provides me and the church that I serve with added insights, resources and abilities that are not encompassed in the three years of theological training obtained through enrollment in a seminary. As you can tell from what I have written, I was "offended" by Dr. Wheeler's over generalization and broad-brush approach to inditing CLPs, especially based on her myopic lens that looked at CLPs through her hometown and her own congregation's experience. One case does not make a rule. Why, when the denomination meets at the bi-annual General Assembly meetings, are there no special-focused opportunities for CLPs to come together to share experiences and to reflect back into the denomination's committee and office structure, and to offer suggestions? Is the denomination, or possibly some in the ranks of MSW teaching elders, fearful of the growing number of CLPs serving in their presbyteries whose meager 120 - 140 hours of training might just might make the newer CLPs more current and up-to-date than those who have settled into a routine? I hope that I have not offended too many, but stirred some to look at CLPs from another perspective. John R. Loch, Ph.D., CPP. CLP |
Joyce L. Manson
said:
|
Seattle, Wash. Web letter1 08-10-10 re: CLPS … top rung? (pub. April 19, 2010) Recently I heard of seven tentmakers staffing an urban church, and of seven laypeople who intentionally chose an urban church for neighborhood renewal. The latter have seminary degrees but not ordination so they really do not need a preacher/teacher. It seems to me also with the death of George Webber of N.Y. Seminary that the ecumenical/theological training he offered to laypeople with day jobs at competitive rates on nights and weekends trained clergy and laity — especially ethnic minorities and women for leadership in their home congregation and area. Joyce L. Manson, H.R. Seattle, Wash. |
Ed_Wilson
said:
|
Charlotte, N.C. As we look into the future, we need to address the truth that we may well have too many seminaries. I believe we have almost the same number as the United Methodist Church, which is about three times our size. This will be painful for the church, but most necessary. Why train men and women who will have nowhere to go? CLPs were designed for very small churches often in remote palaces. In the presbytery where I have been a member for 42 years, we use them to fill troubled new development churches as well as other churches in trouble. Many of these do serve church (that) are very small and could not afford a full-time pastor. These CLPs have life experiences (that) are most helpful to all involved. However, at times some congregations appear to be too satisfied with (a lesser) financial requirement. And the longer one stays the more entrenched he/she becomes. The 130 hours of training disturbs me. That is less than one week of hours! About 3 1/4 weeks, based on a 40-hour workweek; 16 1/4 hours for each of the eight components of require study. As noted in your article, this is the equivalent to three college courses. Ministerial candidates spend three years in training! There was a time when if one sensed a call to ministry later in life, some of the educational requirements were waived for these “extraordinary candidates.” However they were required to successfully complete one and preferably two years of full time seminary training. Let’s think about the number of seminaries we actually need and the real purpose of CLPs in the life of our church. Ed Wilson Charlotte, N.C. |
Barbara G. Wheeler
said:
|
New York, NY The writer makes a good point. Bi-vocational ministers have always been part of the ministry ecology, and in some settings the use of them is a creative response to local conditions. The location of many churches that cannot afford a full-time minister, however, limits the possibilities for the use of "tentmakers." Often such churches are found in communities that have few employment opportunities. Where I go to church, for instance, in the less populous part of a semi-rural county, there are a number of congregations without full-time pastors. The obstacle to attracting bi-vocational ministers is that most of the jobs in the community don't mesh easily with ministers' training and earning needs. The principal employment opportunities are for corrections officers in a large state prison, miners in the slate industry, retail clerks and health aides. The school system is the only employer that offers professional and skilled technical positions that might be combined with ministry--and it is as strapped for funds as the churches are. The writer of this letter would have to travel some distance--perhaps as much as 50 miles--to find a job that uses his special skills, and that would limit his availability for ministry in the community. |
Rev. David Vellenga
said:
|
Henderson, NC When I linked to Dr. Wheeler’s presentation from the article, I was struck by her statement: “We seem to be edging toward the creation of two classes of ministers of word and sacrament—one with theological degrees, minimum salary and pension, the other informally educated and paid only token amounts without benefits.” As a tentmaker minister, I wondered where I and my fellow tentmakers fit in. I have the theological degree, yet am paid by the church I serve only a token amount, and do not receive benefits. Actually, I take that back; I would not consider what the church pays me “token,” nor would they, but it is far from a full-time package. Most of my family’s income comes from my wife’s work and my work as a photolithography technician. When Dr. Wheeler envisions just two classes, I wonder why we are not included. Maybe we need a third tier for tentmakers! I have been a tentmaker for going on 30 years, and the Association of Presbyterian Tentmakers has been around since 1986. Considering that tentmakers solve Dr. Wheeler’s dilemma in one fell swoop (We have the theological degree yet can be paid token amounts without benefits) I sometimes wonder why our tribe has not increased with the same vigor seen in the lay pastor movement. We have data from both tentmakers and the churches they serve that indicate it works very well. But tentmaking raises some uncomfortable questions for our denomination, which may be why it tends to get left out. It is possible to be a “real” minister of the word and sacrament and not work “full-time” in a church position? What would presbytery be like if most ministers earned their living outside the church (like ruling elders already do)? We have taken seriously this worthy standard of an educated ministry, but we have linked with it the notion that this educated minister must be fully supported by the church, that is, with a “minimum salary and benefits.” We are so used to this way of supporting ministers we forget its checkered past. It started with Constantine’s establishment of the church, which suddenly required full support of the ministers by the state. It was a matter of controversy in the Reformation, as we see in the Second Helvetic Confession (5.168). Dr. Wheeler mentions the rabbinic ideal; yet in the Talmud there are mentioned rabbis who thought that earning a living by teaching Torah was reprehensible. One should also see Loren Mead’s commentary of over twenty years ago in Patterns of Parish Leadership, which was a thoroughgoing analysis of how our old way of fully-supporting clergy no longer worked. But Mead raises the question whether it was theologically suspect as well with a vehemence that some might find surprising, and he notes (22 years ago) that this is an issue the mainline church has been avoiding for half a century, an issue that is not just economical but theological as well. I hate to see tentmaking passed over as a model. My own experience of tentmaking is that instead of somehow corrupting the Reformed ideal of the ministry, it rather brings it to full flower, with ministers and ruling elders finding their proper roles. The typical seminary product graduates with a valuable degree looking for a call to serve, but also expecting to be fully supported by the church in his or her ministry. That worked fifty years ago, but no longer. Yet there are still churches that need pastoral leadership. Lay pastors have rushed in to fill that vacuum, and when a vacuum is filled, there is a lot of turbulence as the gas expands to fill the nooks and crannies. We can tweak and improve the training of lay pastors, but we really need to face up to the larger question of how we financially support the ministry in all its forms. This is a severe challenge for our denomination in its wounded state. |
Edgar K_DeJean
said:
|
Salem, Indiana After I read the article, “Commissioned Lay Pastors,” in The Presbyterian Outlook (Vol. 192 No. 8) I read the full remarks of Barbara Wheeler at: http://www.pcusa.org/vocation/wheelerspeech.pdf and I reviewed the PCUSA research material at (pcusa.org/clp/). My response to the article reflects 60+ years as an elder in a small Presbyterian Congregation. I concur with the exemplary insights expressed by both sources above, indicating the critical need for affordable leadership in so many, small congregations during this specific, and continuing, economic era. However, a question remains, “Will changing the availability and the cost of leadership reverse the losses in membership?” I shrink from the negative expression, “Christianity must change or it will die.” Rather my belief system has struggled and struggled and has finally brought me to a positive alternate, “If Christianity morphs it will survive. “ Tradition is the key. Tradition is not valid until it is accepted. The Church has indeed accepted traditions – too many of which are difficult for current members and non-members to accept. Tradition is not valid until it is tested. Does probing and testing ancient mysteries and traditions with today’s knowledge constitute a questioning faith -- or unwarranted, automatic heresy? Tradition is not irrevocably valid. It is in constant, enigmatic struggle - time and change (morphing) can render mysteries valid only to have subsequent time and change (morphing) determine that validity to be unsustainable. Edgar K. DeJean, Elder First Presbyterian Church Salem, Indiana |
Lawton Posey
said:
|
Charleston, W.V. Dr. Barbara Wheeler made some valid thoughts recently about the ministry and preparation of CLPs. As one who devoted considerable time to the program here in West Virginia as teacher, peer group leader, and mentor, I agree with much of what she said. While she touched on this point, it was not made specifically. When lay ministry in a more defined sense came to West Virginia, the title borne by the practitioners was Commissioned Lay Preacher. That title and the descriptive information in the Book of Order guided our planning for the curriculum which involved (to some extent) the several items mentioned as needed for development of this relatively new ministry. We envisioned a cadre of lay persons (they did not all have to be Elders at that time) who could preach acceptably in a church (that) needed someone to "fill the pulpit." Those … who remember the old Presbyterian US Book of Church Order might recall that Elders were to offer a ministry of the word in places "destitute of religion." It was relatively common for Elders to fill in occasionally, conduct a basic service, and offer limited counsel to those seeking some spiritual help. The notion that these women and men would be pastors occurred at a time when our Presbytery was having difficulty finding pastoral persons for smaller churches, even when grouped. So, it seemed good to accept the newer concept, and we did our best in producing a course of study which would give a basic encounter with theology, Scripture, worship, and polity, that would honor God in places that needed assistance in maintaining a ministry. Even at best, some of us wondered if these folks were given adequate supervision and mentoring after completing the courses and taking on a church. Some of our CLPs had earned college degrees and a few had master's degrees in non-theological subjects. I can think of one such person who had an extensive theological library, and knew how to conduct a well-prepared service of worship. There have been successes. A Certified Christian Educator offers distinguished service, working with a part time ordained Minister of Word and Sacrament. Unfortunately, the expansion of the CLP's authority might result in confusion. One CLP I knew in the past dressed in a clerical collar and could be seen as a fully qualified minister. No crime was done, of course, but some misunderstandings might occur. With the CLP having a license from the civil authority to conduct marriage services came the possibility that such persons might expand the boundaries of this ministry beyond the church served. I am not sure that the training offered was always matched to the needs of the local congregation to expand its own boundaries. Then there is the truth that some of these lay ministers (all ordained Elders) work primary jobs, and may lack availability for some ministries. The plagued question of job descriptions, salary building, benefits, manse expenses, and the like may remain in Limbo in certain areas. One solution, and that only a partial one, is that the Book of Order needs a well developed and cross referenced section on the work of the CLP. At the present time one has to look here and there in the BOO for sections that apply to this relatively new ministry. Presbyteries are already lodging the work of preparation and the activities surrounding the contracts of these church employees in a more consistent way. I could go on … but readers who might or might not agree may understand the questions that might arise in supplement to Dr. Wheeler's analysis. Lawton Posey, HR Presbytery of W.V. Charleston, W.V. |
Write a Response
