You Want to Be a Pastor? Be Something Else First

Although what I say below does not apply in every church situation, I believe it applies mutatis mutandis in so many that I offer it here to our general readership.

If a young man were to ask me how he should prepare for pastoral ministry, close to the top of my list of advice would be, “Get and maintain--especially if you plan to marry and have children, and are not of independent means--a skill for which there is a ready market, for which you could leave the pastorate and quickly begin to support your family.”  I am deadly serious about this.

I say this because I am convinced that doing the right thing in a great many churches will place one in a struggle where one’s livelihood is in immediate jeopardy, and that the normal result of the confrontation is the pastor’s capitulation to some wickedness or foolishness to save his job and feed his family. The conscience is thereby defiled, and the compromised pastor becomes a dressing for some ecclesial disease—clean white gauze on its outside, the inside absorbing the suppurations of a festering sore which will not heal because it refuses to receive the treatment it needs. Such dressings are frequently, of necessity, torn off and thrown away.

We are not speaking here of the incursion of the know-it-all clerical whippersnapper who steams into a church to reform it according to his own bright lights or formulas for success he has learned in some ridiculous Practical Theology faculty, but rather the pastor who finds, as one so often does, heresy or immorality that must be dealt with, and purposes to deal with it. There are great advantages in such a case to be operating, and to be known to be operating, from a position of financial independence. Challenging the malignancy has a cost, and it is wise to be able to cover it before one begins the work.

Comments

[Gene Godbold]

Damn straight. :-)

[DGP]

Saint Paul recommended the unmarried state precisely for this reason, that a man's responsibility might not be divided. It turns out that his advice was especially applicable to pastoral ministry.

[Bobby Winters]

Let me add as well that such knowledge adds two dimensions to the pastor
1. The understanding of what it is like to work in situations where you are not an authority figure.
2. When NOT to believe parishioners when they try to wiggle out of something because they have to work.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>aint Paul recommended the unmarried state precisely for this reason, that a man's responsibility might not be divided. It turns out that his advice was especially applicable to pastoral ministry.<<<

As someone from the Eastern Christian tradition, I can only say, "Hooey". Also, try reading the Pastoral Epistles again, which presume that deacons and presbyter/bishops are, in fact, married men.

[Athanasia]

This is about the smartest piece of advice I've read in a long time and agree 100 trillion percent. Been there. Done that. Still scrubbing with the t-shirt.

[DGP]

Mr. Koehl,

My admittedly limited exposure to Eastern Christian theology suggests that the Easterners esteem celibacy rather highly, though it is not mandatory for presbyters. I doubt that "hooey" does justice to your tradition.

[Fr. Bill]

I've also been there and done that -- in my case, challenging a long history of divorce and remarriage in one particular congregation -- at the price of being invited to go away three months after the birth of my firstborn. In God's marvelous providence, I found myself transported to a delightful venue and a challenging (in a healthful sense) congregation in Vienna Austria (real hardship duty that!).

But, Brother Hutchens speaks to the point -- in today's climate, a pastor who does not have to depend on his congregation for a living is the pastor who has the kind of maneuvering room to challenge sin and sinners.

I know a retired priest whose bread and butter came from street ministry to the homeless. He insisted that his bishop deploy him in church planting ministry half-time so he could maintain his sanity. He once told me that his "success" in planting new parishes was directly tied to his freedom from having the local parish control his income. Those who would have driven him away went away themselves. The parishes grew until he could not longer serve them as they needed full-time priests.

Fr. B

[smh]

Let me say that as a Protestant who served as a parish minister for four years, and who wrote this blog in light of the experiences of many pastors I have known, I have often appreciated the Catholic approach to parish ministry--the priest as a rule is unmarried, and his calling is protected by his Church to the highest degree. Not that I would give up my wife and children, of course, but it became very clear to me that this gave great authority and unparalleled freedom for service to the good priest. Of course, it has proved to give the bad priests and bishops power and freedom to cause terrible damage, too. Tradeoffs are involved. You pays your money and takes your choice.

Considering the whole, I find myself constantly fighting back cynicism: homo homini lupus. But for the grace of God the pastor will turn wolf and devour his flock, or the flock will turn into a pack and devour its pastor. The Church depends upon this grace, but prudence is a part of the gift.

[David Palmer]

The Presbyterian system involves clearly defined checks and balances which helps protect the Pastor whilst ensuring that he operates within a collegiate ministry: first the Session (Consistory, comprising local church elders) and then the Presbytery (ministerial colleagues and representative elders, both classes in equal number).

However I agree with the advice in the sense that the pastoral ministry is a very tough place to be and even with the most supportive system in the world, numbers of men drop out for a variety of reasons.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Mr. Koehl,

My admittedly limited exposure to Eastern Christian theology suggests that the Easterners esteem celibacy rather highly, though it is not mandatory for presbyters. I doubt that "hooey" does justice to your tradition.<<<

The Eastern Christian Tradition esteems celibacy, but also esteems marriage. Both are holy vocations, and, as St. John Chrysostom noted, there can be more holiness in the nuptial chamber than the monk's cell.

In the East, there is a bifurcated clergy--"secular" (i.e., married) and monastic (i.e., celibate). The former comprise the parish priests and deacons, while the latter perform the same ministries within a monastic environment and provide candidates for the episcopacy.

The East prefers married men for its pastors, because this reduces the distance between the clergy and the people they serve. It ensures that the pastor knows and understands the problems faced by married couples and their families, since they share in them. Reliance on married priests in the parishes furthermore reinforces the ecclesial dimension of ordained ministry as a "ministry of service" to which men are called out from the community. So strongly does the East feel about this that, until quite recently, monastic priests, or even widowed priests, were not permitted to serve as parish pastors (and this only changed because of a general shortage of clergy, so can be considered a deviation from the norm).

This stands in opposition to the notion of ordained ministry as a "vocation" or charism. The East rather sees the distinction not between marriage and "priesthood" (since in the mystery of Crowning in Marriage, the man and woman are in fact confirmed in their own priesthood), but between marriage and monasticism. In other words, ordained ministry is not a "calling", but monasticism or marriage is.

The monastic clergy is a necessary counterbalance to the married clergy, fulfilling the obligation of all Christians to "pray always" (which is what monks do). Monks typically provide the spiritual fatherhood which is a concomitant of Eastern Christian piety, and also serve as the exemplars and touchstones of Christian life. Their asceticism keeps worldliness in check; without the monks, it is too easy for the secular clergy to be hijacked by the world. The lack of vibrant monasticism in a community causes problems, and the lack of a monastic tradition in Protestantism may be a cause of many problems and much discontent amongs married Protestant ministers.

This leads to another difference between married Eastern Christian clergy and married Protestant ministers. In the case of the latter, the woman may be her husband's hostess and social secretary, but she does not actually share in his ministry. On the other hand, the wives of Eastern Christian priests and deacons are considered part of a dual ministry, with special responsibility for the welfare of the women and children of the parish. Within the parish, the Presbytera, Pani, or Khouria (as she is variously known) plays a vital role in the life of the community, one which is taken quite seriously (to the point that some Orthodox seminaries in this countries now run courses for the wives of potential priests and deacons). It is also not unusual for the sons of priests and deacons to follow their fathers into the ministry, eventually to serve as deacons and priests in their fathers' stead (if there are enough children, one might also decide to follow the monastic life as well).

This system dates to the fourth century, and has worked well for all that time; it works well today, whatever critics on the outside might think from the experience of their own Traditions. I hear this constantly from Roman Catholics who extol the virtues of mandatory celibacy, and who constantly harp, "How can a man be a priest and support a family?", to which I simply reply, "How can a man be a priest without the support of a family".

[Gene Godbold]

Stuart,
That was lovely. I've never heard it put so well. (Admittedly, as an Anglican, my familiarity is limited--though my brother worships in the OCA.)

[DGP]

Mr. Koehl,

I don't have any serious objection to your take on it all, although I don't think the Western and Eastern traditions in this matter are truly exclusive of each other. In the West, "mandatory" celibacy is really just a means of drawing the prudential line in a different place: Exceptions may be made, as we currently do for deacons and a handful of priests, but the Western expectation of continence or celibacy is as old as the Eastern tradtion of bifurcated clergy, and I dare say works about as well.

I didn't mean to hijack Mr. Hutchens' discussion of a pastor's potential vulnerability. (In fact, if you look at my original remark, I never mentioned *mandatory* celibacy.) I meant only to suggest that his sense of the potential sacrifice involved in pastoral ministry is not really new: It appears in one form or another in every generation, including -- so I argue -- Saint Paul's.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Stuart, Is it not also the case that once ordained to the priesthood a single priest may not marry?

While I as an Anglican appreciate the merits of your argument, I still think the observations and prefernce of St. Paul, though he is clear not to make it a command, deserve more respect than "hooey". It is clear that in his day presyters and bishops were married. His pastoral rules cannot be construed to mean that he thinks they should be married, but rather that if married they must only be married once. If marriage for the clergy is seen as a Scriptural mandate there is then no scriptural justification for requiring celibacy for the episcopacy can be argued from Scripture.

It is all a matter of what seems to work best for the Gospel. All good arguments should be considered, and Paul's advice should be given a good measure of respect, unless we think our church is smarter then he.

[Adam DeVille]

I agree entirely with the advice in the original post, and in fact have myself given this advice to seminarians whom I know. I worked for 2 years (unpaid) in an Eastern Christian parish and watched nearly constant, savage, utterly puerile (and, of course, totally uncharitable) attacks on the priest over everything and nothing. He was a new immigrant from Eastern Europe with limited English and a family to look after and therefore needed the salary, as immorally low as it was. The best advice he gave to me, which I have never forgotten, is "Look after yourself, because the Church sure won't." (He's since gotten a job and changed to a better parish.) I vowed then and there that I would never leave myself open to a situation of fiscal-ecclesiastical blackmail.

[Christopher]

As an Orthodox Christian, I would like to offer a slightly different perspective than Mr. Koehl. Mr. Koehl does a good job of describing the ideal. I must point out that he is an Eastern Rite Catholic and not Orthodox, so when he speaks of "Roman Catholics" as something separate I wince a little. In my current jurisdiction (OCA) there is a scandal that centers around financial mismanagement. I don't want to overstate it, but it is a scandal that will have short and long term consequences for our Church. I think Dr. Hutchens post can be applied directly.

What I have noticed is that many, many priests were aware of the financial mismanagement but chose to remain silent. Why? One important reason that can not be overstated is exactly what Dr. Hutchens describes - fear of retribution from the hierarchy which would mean they would not be able to support their families. It is taking independent laity to properly work through this current situation. I wonder if such a situation would have developed (and continue for so long) if more of the clergy had been less dependant.

Also, Mr. Koehl states:

"without the monks, it is too easy for the secular clergy to be hijacked by the world. The lack of vibrant monasticism in a community causes problems, and the lack of a monastic tradition in Protestantism may be a cause of many problems and much discontent amongs married Protestant ministers."

Again, the ideal. Yet, it is the "Monastic" bishops that are at the center of our scandal. Same with RC pedophile scandal. Obviously, being "hijacked by the world" falls on monastics as well.

"This leads to another difference between married Eastern Christian clergy and married Protestant ministers. In the case of the latter, the woman may be her husband's hostess and social secretary, but she does not actually share in his ministry. On the other hand, the wives of Eastern Christian priests and deacons are considered part of a dual ministry, with special responsibility for the welfare of the women and children of the parish."

This may be a distinction without a difference. I have been part of protestant communities where the wife of the pasture did indeed "share in his ministry". Also, I have been part of Orthodox communities where the Presbytera was not fulfilling her traditional role (for what ever reason)...

[Joe Long]

This is excellent advice..and not merely to keep the pastor from helpless dependence on a possibly-fickle congregation.

-It gains him respect from men. It helps, of course, if the other job skill set is "alligator wrestler" - but in any case, the perception that the pastor "could make it" in the "real world" is important. (Unfairly, perhaps - but the stereotype of the effete academic who "only works one day a week" and spends the rest of his time at tea parties is pretty strong.)

-It's valuable experience. "Mustang" officers - those commissioned from the ranks - are often the best leaders; the no-nonsense Israeli army, in fact, commissions officers only after enlisted service. Usually "straight-from-the-Academy" (or seminary) leaders do have what it takes to lead, but they often have to learn some important lessons while already in charge - which can be painful for all concerned.

-Precedent. A tentmaker, a fisherman...a carpenter.

[Mark Drzycimski]

-Precedent. A tentmaker, a fisherman...a carpenter.

Well put, Joe.

[Douglas]

In my experience of Episcopal clergy, the most theologically rigorous are generally those who experienced the call as young men and have always been professional priests. The problem of young whippersnappers trying to upend everything is mitigated by the fact that they almost always start as assistants to an older, experienced rector.

Mr. Hutchens' advice is sound, but in application, you also end up with a lot of ex-college professors, social workers, lawyers, etc. who drift into the ministry at age 40 like they've drifted into everything else. Case in point: our own Presiding Bishop-elect.

To the extent the laity needs to connect with people with "real world" experience, I would submit that that is the function of the lay ministers and deacons. It strikes me that the priest, just as he (now "she"--Lord save us) is iconographic of Christ during the Eucharist, so he is iconographic of Christ as the Good Shepherd, whose entire life is devoted solely to the care of his flock.

So, while the ministry as a second career is a sound plan for the individual priest, the dearth of professional clergy whose entire working lives have been devoted to the ministry may not be so good for the Church as a whole.

Obviously, I'm generalizing.

[Gene Godbold]

I think, for the sake of his own dignity, as well as the respect of his parishioners (as Joe mentioned), the pastor needs to have a skill that he can use to support himself.

There might be a danger in this, though. Note the case of Peter in the last chapter of John's gospel. Doesn't it seem that he is tempted to draw away from Jesus by his occupation? At the beginning of the chapter Peter says, "I go a fishing" and the sons of Zebedee and two other disciples are drawn away with him. So they fish all night and catch nothing until Jesus appears in the morning on the shore (initially, anonymously) and gives them unsolicited advice. Peter (re?)turns to the Lord, swimming to meet him. The others drag the fish back and Jesus invites them to eat with him. If I'm right in detecting a turning away from Jesus on the part of the disciples (for fishing), the meal restores fellowship, besides providing echoes of the upper room.

The leader of the minor rebellion needs stronger medicine, though. Was Peter's turning away a function of the guilt he still felt over denying Jesus? I think so, or something like this. To close the wound, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Him "more than these". What are these? Aren't "these" the fish, the nets, the boats, the practice of fishing? After Peter's affirmative, Jesus emphasizes Peter's new vocation--taking care of Jesus' people, the Church. He repeats this twice more so Peter can realize he is properly forgiven for the threefold denial and Jesus expresses His confidence that Peter will persevere to the end by dying for his Lord.

I think this illustrates that a fall-back position for provision might be a hindrance to ministry in that it can make a man "self-reliant" and thus make abandoning his vocation easier when the going gets tough...That said, I do believe (strongly) that the danger Dr. Hutchens warns against (accomodating immorality for the sake of provision) is the greater one in our age.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>So they fish all night and catch nothing until Jesus appears in the morning on the shore (initially, anonymously) and gives them unsolicited advice. Peter (re?)turns to the Lord, swimming to meet him. The others drag the fish back and Jesus invites them to eat with him. If I'm right in detecting a turning away from Jesus on the part of the disciples (for fishing), the meal restores fellowship, besides providing echoes of the upper room. <<<

Or is the fishing being used as a symbol for doing evangelism? It is an interesting pericope.

Jesus was a carpenter turned preacher.

[Gene Godbold]

Hey Douglas,

I've never been in the Episcopal Church. I was confirmed into a continuing Anglican body (by Bp. Morse) 19 years ago in college. I've been a deacon almost five years and I've met a lot of clergy (all orthodox, of course :-) who found their vocations later in life.

My feeling is that once you attain a certain critical mass of heretical teaching in a Christian body, diagnosing the source of subsequent errors is extraordinarily problematic. So making the case that any of the woes of the Episcopal Church are due to those late-come to their vocations is a pretty tall order. This situation in TEC/ECUSA/PECUSA has obtained for at least 30 years (maybe 50--going back to Pike's lunacy or 75 and the acceptance of birth control). Back then, you might have had some hope of figuring out precisely who or what was to blame. (Some RCs are probably shouting: "No; keep going! It was Henry and Elizabeth!" :-)

[Douglas]

Ha ha! Point well taken Gene.

"The whole head is sick..." Isaiah.

[Matthias]

The advice given here has a disturbing echo of a "pre-nuptial contract". Is it really right for someone answering a calling to ministry to hedge his bets in this way?

I'm not sure I believe the advice is all that useful anyway. Someone who leaves ministry and returns to secular employment is going to have a very, very hard time no matter what. But the most important skills for people changing careers are one the ministry trains for very well: verbal communication, organization, analytical and interpersonal skills.

More specialized skills than those are very difficult to keep current. I would be interested to know what the author thinks is a realistic example of a "skill for which there is a ready market" and which it is practical for a prospective pastor to "get and maintain."

[DGP]

<>

Now there's a mischievous thought. I'd say "acting," but that's not very marketable. Firms are always looking for salesmen, and also non-profit fundraisers and "development coordinators." The entrepreneurial realm can always tolerate another quasi-professional therapist, and many community-oriented agencies need caseworkers for the home visits so unpopular with more highly graded professionals. All of these tasks are all too familiar to ordained ministers.

[Gene Godbold]

Matthias,
I'll venture an answer: general contracting. There will probably be members of your (former?) church who would be willing to employ you, at least if you had been doing your job correctly. It is also helpful in ministry. Tent-making has some historical precedence, but the modern economy has seen fit to mostly eliminate the occupation.

[smh]

Had I written a longer blog, I hope I should have remembered to say has been added by Mr. Godbold: that no pre-emptive scheme is perfect--particularly that the preparations I have described would entail temptation, perhaps very great temptation, to fall back into secular occupation, perhaps at the very crisis at which perseverence would heal a church. Of course, my intent was to give the pastor the ability to stay the crisis--but even if relief is available, the will and principle to see the job through must be there.

One must also have the ability to know when the crisis has passed, and hence to know when one stays to help with the healing process (or searches for a successor who will) or leaves.

Usually the defeated pastor is kicked out, especially if it is a local action--but not always. Sometimes, as in the Episcopal Church, the battle is utterly lost, but like the fabled Japanese soldier on the remote island, the defeated Episcopalian is still fighting the war in 1947.

[David C. Kanz]

Each ministry position I have had but two ended for such reasons. The latest was a particularly viscious and malignant attack on my person and character as well as one of my family members---by the pastor and the deacons with rings in their noses.

This guy even resorted to stating publically that my brother, in a church business meeting, threatened to kill him. Fortunately, my brother had a digital recorder in his pocket the entirety of the time of the business meeting. Such accusation ceased rather quickly after this "pastor" was informed of the recording. (After that, no recording devices were allowed in church business meetings by order of the pastor.)

Sadly, this "pastor" even solicited witnesses of this event from the pulpit on the next Sunday. Oddly, there were three people who "heard" the purported death threat. (Said witnesses also disappeared after they were apprised of the digital recording.)

And all of this because the "pastor" had competing monetary and retirement interests going on while employed as the pastor of this church which influenced his activity in the church--in fact drove his activity in the church. (He also had been exposed for what he was on many levels: a hireling.)

This man used every means available to him to protect his job including but not limited to fabrication, false statements, lies, innuendo and out and out threat. He won; or did he?

Brethren, the Church is a mess. We need not wonder why the Presence of God is so little with us.

Gentlemen, the advise on this column these days is not optional, in my opinion.

[C. A. L.]

Having been a pastor since 1976, I can verify the Mr. Hutchens information is completely true.

I dearly wish I had had this advice in 1972. I would have avoided many years of heartache, pain, and two crushing, demeaning, horrible years of unemployment.

Read and heed.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I don't have any serious objection to your take on it all, although I don't think the Western and Eastern traditions in this matter are truly exclusive of each other. In the West, "mandatory" celibacy is really just a means of drawing the prudential line in a different place: Exceptions may be made, as we currently do for deacons and a handful of priests, but the Western expectation of continence or celibacy is as old as the Eastern tradtion of bifurcated clergy, and I dare say works about as well.<<<

I have no problem with the Western Church following its own Tradition with regard to clerical discipline--though I do believe that discipline is at the root of many problems within the Western Church today, especially rampant clericalism and its antithesis, radical congregationalism. Neither, in my mind, is true to the apostolic and patristic understanding of Christian ministry and the relationship between ordained ministers and their flocks.

My problems begin when the Western Church act as though its own discipline--which was never rigorously enforced until the 11th century--is both normative for all Christians and somehow or other rooted in the Apostolic Tradition. Moreover, the Western Church has seen fit to impose its ecclesial discipline on the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome in North America and Australasia--though increasingly our bishops are ignoring this restriction. Put bluntly, insistence upon clerical celibacy among the Eastern clergy is tantamount to saying that our priests are somehow "less fully priests" than the celibate priests of the Western Church. It is also hypocritical for the Western Church to put this blanket prohibition on Eastern priests in the New World, when there are, in fact, more married Latin priests in the United States today (upwards of 100 in fact) than there are married Eastern Catholic priests. Finally, one has to wonder, from an ecumenical position, just how seriously to take Rome's assertions that it respects and values the Tradition of the Eastern Churches NOT in communion with her, when she shows so little regard for the Churches that ARE.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I didn't mean to hijack Mr. Hutchens' discussion of a pastor's potential vulnerability. (In fact, if you look at my original remark, I never mentioned *mandatory* celibacy.) I meant only to suggest that his sense of the potential sacrifice involved in pastoral ministry is not really new: It appears in one form or another in every generation, including -- so I argue -- Saint Paul's.<<<

Paul chose to work so that the Gospel could be delivered by him, an Apostle, "free of charge", in apparent contrast to the other Apostles, who seem to have been supported by the various communities so that they could preach full time. I fail to see where celibacy falls into this picture. Certainly, had Paul wanted to do so, he could have told Timothy only to ordain unmarried men. But he did not, and in fact goes out of his way to highlight mature, married men with a demonstrable track record of stability and household management.

Which seems rather to point to Dr. Hutchens' post concerning callow youths right out of seminary. I am very much in favor of "second vocation" men, who turn to ministry after successful careers in the world. These men have been around the block, understand the line between theory and actuality, know the problems and temptations faced by the people they shepherd, and have credibility because they have dealt with them in their own lives.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, Is it not also the case that once ordained to the priesthood a single priest may not marry?<<<

Since the Council in Trullo (692), the canonical regulations of the Eastern Churches (also, by the way, accepted at the time in the West) permits the ordination of married men to the diaconate and presbyterate, but does not permit men already ordained to marry (or remarry). Moreover, Trullo codified the ancient custom that bishops should be celibate--and thus, from an Eastern perspective, monastic.

However, the East does not view canons as being "objective law" set in stone and incapable of deviation. In fact, canons are subject to oikonomia, to the extent that this does not involve a violation of dogma. Oikonomia is not the same as a dispensation, since it is not a juridical process or decision. Rather, as the word suggests, it is an act of stewardship on the part of the oikonomos of a local Church (the bishop) to ensure that the Church's mission of bringing all men to Christ does not founder on pettifogging adherence to man-made rules. However, being an act of bishop's personal charism, it can never set a precedent, and by definition is bound to be controversial.

Turning to specifics, there have been, in the last several decades, at least two examples of married priests permitted to remarry. In both cases, the man in question was young widower with young children. The bishops involved, in both cases, considered that the good of the children required these men to remarry, while the good of the Church required them to remain as priests. A tough call, but that's why bishops wear the big hats.

For the record, though, the canons of Trullo remain normative and are followed in the vast majority of cases: married men can be ordained deacons and priests, but deacons and priests may not marry.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> I worked for 2 years (unpaid) in an Eastern Christian parish and watched nearly constant, savage, utterly puerile (and, of course, totally uncharitable) attacks on the priest over everything and nothing. He was a new immigrant from Eastern Europe with limited English and a family to look after and therefore needed the salary, as immorally low as it was.<<<

Abusus non tollit usus. The situation you describe is not unusual in Eastern parishes in this country, due to the practive of lay stewardship (which was at the heart of a major schism within the Eastern Catholic Churches here in the 1930s). It should not be considered objective or ideal--nor is it, in fact, true in the majority of cases.

I put all the blame on the bishop in question, who in fact is responsible for all the communities in his local Church. He allows this to happen when he refuses to ride herd on parish councils, and to back up his presbyters, who in fact act as his deputies at the Eucharistic assembly.

With regard to pay, I do believe that the OCA, at least, has standards that demand a living wage for its pastors (and in most parishes, the pastor is the only paid employee); in some areas, this equates to a salary between $40-70,000, plus health insurance and other benefits. This, of course, pales in comparison to the salaries of rabbis, which in some upscale synagogues can top $300,000/year.

But money is neither here nor there. The real problem is the elevation of the parish to the center of ecclesial life, and the loss of the ecclesial dimension of the Eucharist celebrated by the bishop as head of a local Church that possesses the fullness of the Christian faith through Christ's presence, as well as a share in the universality of the Church through their communion with their brother bishops.

Metropolitan John (Zizoulis) of Pergamon addresses this salient issue head-on in his recent book, "Eucharist, Bishop, Church"--which I recommend to Western as well as Eastern Christians because a rediscovery of the Eucharist as central to the defintion of Church is also essential for the reestablishment of true Christian unity.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>In my current jurisdiction (OCA) there is a scandal that centers around financial mismanagement.<<<

Join the club. There has been financial mismanagement in the Church since Judas Iscariot. Celibate or married, seculular or monastic, lay or episcopal stewardship, the fact remains that the Church is composed of and overseen by sinful, fallible men. I am neither shocked nor surprised when the Church fails to live up to the ideals ascribed to her.

>>>Again, the ideal. Yet, it is the "Monastic" bishops that are at the center of our scandal. Same with RC pedophile scandal. Obviously, being "hijacked by the world" falls on monastics as well.<<<

I will merely quote from Chrysostom, who said that "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops". This, of course, during the "Golden Age" of the Fathers. But to clarify just a couple of points:

1. Eastern Christian monasticism in the New World is far from healthy or dynamic, either in the Orthodox or Catholic communions. The monastic revival that has swept Eastern Europe since the fall of communism and replenished the monasteries of the Holy Mountain has not reached here, for various reasons that are too complex to elaborate at this time. The result, however, is clearly a lack of balance between the worldliness and asceticism that has been remarked upon by many Eastern Orthodox theologians including Schmemann, Meyendorff, and Ware.

2. Few of the Roman Catholic bishops in this country are in fact "monastics"--they are merely celibates.

3. Monasteries from time immemorial have had to deal with both sexual and financial abuses, for reasons that have something to do with the Fall of Adam.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What I have noticed is that many, many priests were aware of the financial mismanagement but chose to remain silent. Why? One important reason that can not be overstated is exactly what Dr. Hutchens describes - fear of retribution from the hierarchy which would mean they would not be able to support their families.<<<

To put the shoe on the other foot:

In the Roman Catholic Church (and even in the Eastern Catholic Churches), there have been innumerable financial and sexual scandals (albeit the latter get more press). In many cases, the scandals were common knowledge among the diocesan clergy, who chose to remain silent. Without families to consider, one would have to ask why they did so, and lo! one discovers that when a man is entirely dependent upon a particular organization for his livelihood, to say nothing of the psychological support it brings him, he is loathe to speak against it. Fear of retribution (a vindictive bishop? Perish the thought!) affects the married and unmarried in about equal shares, if experience is any guide.

Remember that there were thousands, even tens of thousands of married priests who remained true to the faith in the face of deadly persecution, family or no. Their record of fidelity matches any on the part of celibate or monastic clergy in similar positions. Moreover, one can point to myriad celibates who sold out in the same situation, so obviously this is no guarantee of clerical integrity.

[smh]

Reading over the comments again at this stage, I would like to emphasize that I was not referring to second vocations in the sense of those who come late, from other work, into the pastorate, except so far as this other work has provided them with independent means. I was speaking primarily to young men, contemplating entering the ministry as such--about (1) the "leverage" to do pastoral work as a necessary part of the pastoral panoply, and (2) fiscal prudence: in our Lord's words, making sure, before the enemy is engaged, that the physical resources required to win the battle are available.

Only a fool makes prudence the enemy of faith, unless we are to reproach the saint for carrying an umbrella. If the pastor can only measure his faith against what he cannot reasonably foresee, he will, if he is doing his job, have abundant opportunity to do so.

As the embattled minister of a mainline Protestant church (Congregational) I looked with some envy upon two of my ministerial peers in town, the Catholic priest, whose power in his congregation was made clear to me in an epiphany when I discovered that it was he who signed the parish checks, and the minister of the big Evangelical church, who had married wealth, and was one of the calmest pastors I ever saw.

To be sure, faith is higher than prudence, but does not exclude it. Too many attempt faith before they attempt wisdom, only to fail at both.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Precedent. A tentmaker, a fisherman...a carpenter.<<<

I'll merely note that only the tentmaker continued to follow his profession after taking up his vocation. The fisherman was chided by the tentmaker for living off the contributions of the faithful (as well as for being followed around by his wife). As for the Carpenter, Joseph was a tekton, which is either a builder or a "general carpenter"--but Jesus is variously called either "Joseph's son" or "the tekton's son" and is never identified as a tekton himself. And while is was common for a son to follow in his father's trade, it wasn't automatic, nor was Joseph actually the father of Jesus.

Be that as it may, I think it is safe to say that once He returned from his 40 days in the desert, Jesus never picked up a hammer or level again, but turned all his energies to his mission.

And I have no problems with that. In most Orthodox parishes, as I have said, only the pastor receives a salary. The deacons are unpaid, as are any assistant pastors or associate presbyters. The money simply does not stretch that far. As a result, these men hold day jobs--as was the common practice among the secular clergy in the Christian East (most parish priests were farmers and lived off their crops), which only serves to strengthen the correct image of the ordained minister as a man called out from the community to serve a at the altar.

[smh]

That the tentmaker continued to follow his profession because in his time and place, and under the conditions of his ministry, he found it wise to do so, contrary neither to the law or the service of the gospel, is enough. And I daresay we would be at liberty to do the same even if we weren't provided with a creditable example in the Apostle.

The point of it all is not to evade ministry, but to get as much of it done as we can, to take the necessary armor into battle, at this particular time and place, for the purpose of fighting long and well.

[Chris]

Though the issue of precedent is interesting, we do have the benefit of St. Paul’s own prescription for the selection of our pastors. In regard to both the Bishop (presiding elder) and the deacon, St. Paul deems it important that they be men who have clearly demonstrated an exemplary ability to manage their own households well. (See especially 1 Timothy 3:4-5, 12). This seems to be based on the understanding that it is he who is faithful in the “little” management of one’s own household who is to be given the “greater” responsibility of overseeing God’s household, the Church.
While we may speculate as to the reasons for this criterion, it remains important enough for Paul to specify as essential. Despite this clear direction, few if any traditions seem to follow it.

Essential to effective management, the head of the household would have HAD to have worked in some field sufficient to provide for his family. Fortunately, we have this on good authority (2 Thess 3:10), too. Thus, Dr. Hutchens’ contention appears well-supported.

Certainly God is free to call whom He will, when He will. Even so, it seems to me that the Church suffers – indeed, pastors themselves suffer -- for lack of “tried and tested” leadership. (In business, the culture of an organization is often established at the top. How many Bishops attend seriously to the pastoring of their pastors?) Sound leadership knows how to motivate, monitor, discipline with love, promote key priorities with consistency, provide support and guidance in a crisis, enforce principles when needed, provide vision and direction, and affirm the value of the venture. In short, the true leader is an effective parent. This is not to establish a new criteria which St. Paul has not identified: raising successful children. Indeed, cultivating a warm and loving relationship with one’s wife requires similar virtues, if in a different key. Yet the cultivation and management of a healthy household – in whatever form - would seem important to St. Paul. I am not sure why we felt a liberty to dispense with it, for the true priest is, at heart, a spiritual father.

[Mike McDonald]

Yeah, I'm another one on the list of "Been there, done that, got the T-shirt" former pastors. I'm from a traditional Reformed background and while the ideal is the church's polity is supposed to protect full time staff from taking a hit (and vice versa, natch) professional colleagues often are the scaresest people around in the aftermath. Nobody calls, nobody writes; it is as if you have become yersterday's fish wrap. The guys who used to be weekly lunch partners won't give you the time of day. You've become totally radioactive.

My ordination has since lapsed and I'm back being a civilian again. That said, I'm looking into a traditional Anglican church and I was asked why I let my previous ordination go since if I was ordained I could have greatly accelerated the process. I simply said it wasn't worth the postage to send a letter asking for an extension with my now former group.

[Sue]

No one seems to have engaged the argument (well supported by contemporary documents) that in the early Church, married men who were ordained were expected to give up sexual relations with their wives: hence the ordination of mature men, whose families were complete, whose wives might well have gone through the menopause and were thus (strangely, to our hypersexualised society) presumed to manage quite well without conjugal relations.

While I would agree with Stuart that this was not always enforced, it seems that many councils (local and otherwise) kept trying to do so: the Council of Trullo is the first one that left that tradition, which may be one reason why the RC Church doesn't recognise it.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>No one seems to have engaged the argument (well supported by contemporary documents) that in the early Church, married men who were ordained were expected to give up sexual relations with their wives: hence the ordination of mature men, whose families were complete, whose wives might well have gone through the menopause and were thus (strangely, to our hypersexualised society) presumed to manage quite well without conjugal relations.<<<

I've heard this canard stated repeatedly, but I have never had anyone pony up an actual, verifiable citation. The fact that there are bishops whose fathers were bishops (and even a pope whose father was a pope), and that the math regarding the relative dates of their birth and their fathers' ordination points either to multiple virgin births or a lot of violations of the "rules" would mitigate against this assertion that the early Church demanded continence from its married ministers.

>>>While I would agree with Stuart that this was not always enforced, it seems that many councils (local and otherwise) kept trying to do so: the Council of Trullo is the first one that left that tradition, which may be one reason why the RC Church doesn't recognise it.<<<

On the contrary, the Council in Trullo was an explicit reaction against efforts of the Latin Church to impose their own unique discipline upon the Church as a whole. Whatever the West was doing, from the time of fourth century Spanish councils onward, it certainly wasn't reflecting either the practice or the mind of the universal Church. In fact, an attempt to impose clerical celibacy at the Council of Nicaea was firmly and decidedly rejected.

As to why the Latin Church does not recognize the Council in Trullo, the reasons are many, but that statement itself is not entirely true. A number of the canons of Trullo have been incorporated into Western lists of canons. It would seem that the West likes to cherry pick from the Councils with which it does not fully agree.

[Patrick]

Excellent advice, Dr. Hutchens. For many reasons, even beyond what you state, this is true. I have seen this and I have experienced this. Having a backup frees the soul from those necessary worries and frees the tongue. And it also frees the tithes. Money can often be used as the great influencer by those who should otherwise have little spiritual influence. But because they put a lot into the plate, they become powerful. Pastors who depend on such people for their livelihood cater to thes sometimes manipulative people while ignoring the poorer, yet maybe more spiritually minded, folks who would help the church rise to maturity.

Practically, however, this seems difficult except in the least rigorous traditions. To become a pastor requires, for most, a college and a seminary degree, which means time and money focused in a certain direction in order to gain the skills needed to minister and required by our various churches.

For many this isn't an issue. They have a family trade, or family friends who introduce them to a trade or give them a tool set to push past their education. For those who don't have such they are in a bind.

What practically can be done to promote this very, very good policy? Being dependent on those who you may have to offend is an awful situation, but our educational demands seem to offer little other options at times.

Maybe seminaries should offer trade skill development, working with other local schools teaching computer or technical or other always needed, and often well paying, careers.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Maybe seminaries should offer trade skill development, working with other local schools teaching computer or technical or other always needed, and often well paying, careers.<<<

Maybe seminaries shouldn't accept students who haven't worked in the real world for ten years or so? After all, the ancient canons governing the ordination of a presbyter included a minimum age of thirty--at a time when the average life expectancy was on the order of 45 years. Perhaps we should insist that ministries be filled by stable, mature men who have demonstrated their competence in a non-academic environment? After all, the seminary system as we know it today is a product of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. I have yet to be convinced that this structured, scholastic approach to formation yields better results than the ancient methods of simply having the most qualified person selected from the community and brought forward to the bishop for interrogation and future instruction. None of the Twelve went to a seminary, no did any of the Fathers--yet the Church has yet to see their like again.

[Gene Godbold]

Note on life expectancy: Yes, the average may have been 45 years. But that was the average for a newborn (who had an excellent chance of dying in the first five years of life). It wasn't the average life expectancy of a 6 year old and it certainly wasn't the average life expectancy of a 30 year old who would most likely survive until 60ish.

[Bill R]

Stuart raises a very important point: in clergy/laity disputes, we must not assume that the victim is always the clergyman. Our seminaries often produce young know-it-alls who secretly laugh up their sleeves at unsophisticated, but sincere, believers. A mentoring system would seem more likely to produce a candidate who respects his congregation and who in turn is respected by them.

[Patrick]

Stuart, I absolutely agree with you. There is a significant amount of maturity and wisdom which comes out only after thirty, and what you say makes total sense.

Except we can suggest the Twelve did go to a seminary, taught by the Son of God for three years before his death and a good bit after his resurrection. That made them the ultimate M.Div recipients. The Master of Divinity himself gave them their degrees. Plus, it is the Twelve who said they needed to find Seven who would focus on waiting tables, because they needed to devote themselves to prayer and Scriptures exclusively.

But, how does this work when a man has been in the work force for ten years, has a family, and a good income?

House payments, car payments, medical bill payments all are very potent restrictions to moving into the required religious educational system. Yet do we not require it and thus have ill-educated clergy?

Bringing out the best person is indeed a quality way of working, and is certainly acting in a way that is more attune to the work of the Holy Spirit rather than academic degrees.

Only that's not how things work in any present denomination, except for some of the Baptist and Pentecostal churches which do exactly what you suggest, and accompany this with the problems noted elsewhere on this site.

Maybe there could be in churches a monastic style apprenticeship which teaches a trade apart from active ministry while educating them in the deeper parts of theological and spiritual training.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Except we can suggest the Twelve did go to a seminary, taught by the Son of God for three years before his death and a good bit after his resurrection. <<<

I doubt whether the Son of God could, in this day and age, get his seminary accredited by any board governing divinity schools this country. Not enoughy academic rigor, too restrictive a curriculum, and not demanding enough in the selection process. Why, my goodness, how many of those fishermen, publicans, peasants and petty craftsman even had enough credits to qualify for undergraduate education? And don't get me started on "diversity" issues.

>>>But, how does this work when a man has been in the work force for ten years, has a family, and a good income?<<<

Well, pretty much the way it worked for most of the preceding 1900 years.

>>>Maybe there could be in churches a monastic style apprenticeship which teaches a trade apart from active ministry while educating them in the deeper parts of theological and spiritual training.<<<

I'm still all for the entire congregation rising up and demanding that Mr. So-and-so be ordained. Axios! He is worthy! (and all the more so if he tries to run away, for the truly holy man knows he is NOT worthy). Instead, we get non-entities with the theological equivalent of an education degree and no experience whatsoever. As I said, ordination has ecclesiological implications, eschatological implications, even. But we basically treat it as a job on par with that of the janitor (indeed, we probably demand more in the way of objective skills and experience than we do of the pastor).

[Matthias]

After all, the ancient canons governing the ordination of a presbyter included a minimum age of thirty.

Fascinating; I hadn't heard that before. Can someone cite a specific canon as an example?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Fascinating; I hadn't heard that before. Can someone cite a specific canon as an example?<<<

The definitive canon is No. XIV of the Council in Trullo, which codified the ancient practice then much followed in the breech:

CANON XIV.

LET the canon of our holy God-bearing Fathers be confirmed in this particular also; that a presbyter be not ordained before he is thirty years of age, even if he be a very worthy man, but let him be kept back. For our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized and beg.an to teach when he was thirty. In like manner let no deacon be ordained before he is twenty-five, nor a deaconess before she is forty.

[Patrick]

"Well, pretty much the way it worked for most of the preceding 1900 years."

Which way was this? Pastors should all be the second sons of landed gentry?

The Son of God almost certainly couldn't get accredited and would have an extremely hard time finding a pulpit for himself I imagine. Too much of a rabblerouser.

Though, maybe it would help his seminary prospects by letting go the day to day management and recruiting some young fellow who had good credentials. By knocking him off his horse or something.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Which way was this? Pastors should all be the second sons of landed gentry?<<<

How provincial you are. The Anglican experience is normative, of course!

Let's look rather at the experience of those Churches that have had uninterrupted experience with married pastors since the Apostolic age. It helps, as a starting point, to remember that the parish is not a local Church, but only a small, subordinate part of a local Church, which is a diocese headed by a bishop in the Apostolic Succession, celebrating the Eucharist in communion with his priests, assisted by his deacons, and surrounded by his people.

That given, presbyters are commissioned deputies of the bishop, celebrating the Eucharist in his stead when time, distance and numbers prevent the ideal of the bishop celebrating a single Eucharist in one place. These presbyters are for the most part married men called out from their communities to serve, based on the perception of their worthiness as proven by the lives they have led within that community. In other words, the presbyter is the perfect layman.

Few of these parish priests could qualify as "second sons of landed gentry". In the Christian East, and also in the West until the 11th-12th centuries, the "quality" dedicated their younger sons to the monastic life, which thus would allow them to ascend to the episcopacy or hegumenate--both positions of much more prestige and influence than a mere parish priest.

The bulk of the parish priests, rather, were peasants or sons of peasants in the countryside, or tradesmen and sons of tradesmen in the towns. In the country, the lived off of the parish plot, tilling the soil alongside their neighbors. In the towns, they might follow a range of professions.

How were these men selected? The process was largely organic and informal. The people themselves would put forth the name of likely candidates for ordination. They would first be vetted by the current priest, assisted by the local deacon and some of the leading members of the congregation. If they approved, the man began studying with the priest, learning his letters (if necessary), together with the liturgy, the tones and chants, the Psalter and scripture. When the priest determined that the candidate was ready, he would give him a letter of recommendation and send him on to the bishop for examination. If found worthy, he would be ordained into the minor orders (acolyte and lector), and be sent back to continue to serve in the parish. Gradually, he would rise to subdeacon, then to deacon, and eventually to priest.

Note that, in the East at least, all of these orders remained vocations in their own right, so that a man could become a lector and remain there, or a subdeacon or deacon and remain there; none of these orders were viewed as "transitional" positions on the way to the presbyterate. Also note that, in many cases, the priest would be followed in his place by his son. If there were many sons, one would become the presbyter, another a deacon, and a third would take monastic vows. It was accepted that a son would follow his father, and in some villages, even to this day, you can find fourth, fifth and sixth generation priests.

Thus, the presbyter remained one of and close to the people, a situation that mitigated the tendency towards clericalism while at the same time helping to retain the notion of the presbyter as a deputy of the bishop. Moreover, this mode of selection and training was liturgically oriented, keeping liturgy at the center of Church life as the touchstone and source of doctrine, spirituality and theology. I consider these far more important than the more arcane forms of scriptural exegesis, homiletics and pastoral management that modern seminarians learn in the classroom. A man who has lived in the world, among the people he is to serve, and who knows them and their spiritual needs, is much better prepared to be a pastor than a stranger with a string of degrees and certificates as long as my leg.

[Rob R]

Respectfully: I do not think that measuring the selection process of the Son of God with that of his fallible followers, at a distance of 2000 years of history and practice, is rational. Let's be honest, we could all get things done a little more efficiently if only we were Jesus.

The issue is never money. The issue is vocation, value, and education. If people value having someone dedicated to the task of teaching, preaching, and administering the Sacraments, then they are willing to band together to support a man who can do this as his vocation and not his hobby.

Having a divided mind is a difficult working situation. The ministry ultimately suffers. It can seem successful: people are happy, the church's budget is slim, but something always suffers.