I stirred up a controversy with an editorial on Commissioned Lay Pastors and Interim Ministers. I haven’t tallied the “Amens” and the “No ways,” but I am grateful that discussion has opened on these topics, as well as on the hand-wringing assertion that we have (or are about to have) a minister shortage.
One respondent found my editorial confusing; some of you were “hurt” by what I said. I am not against Interims or CLPs, but there is serious weakness in the church’s use of both positions that has led to loss of membership, the demoralization of Ministers of the Word, and confusion about the role of pastors.
CLPs are particularly useful when such persons emerge from indigenous congregations or communities, receive theological and ecclesiastical training, and then serve in those communities to build up a congregation until it calls a Minister of the Word. On the other hand, I think it is bad policy (and bad faith) to take good elders from strong churches and train them to be lay pastors in churches that cannot afford a “real pastor.” Why don’t the rich churches in a presbytery give enough so that every congregation (or linked congregations) has (have) a Minister of Word and Sacrament? Are rural churches any less deserving of a Minister of the Word than those large churches that can afford three or four? What is the presbytery’s role here; do they continue to be market driven? It takes no imagination to follow a McDonalds strategy of New Church Development. It takes faith and reason for a presbytery to “cover” a region or urban area with the good news of the gospel lived out in Presbyterian congregations. Those who defend the presbyteries for the wrong reasons ought to ask churches of 2,000 members to hire CLPs to lead them.
Interim Ministers perform useful functions in churches that need help with transitions, but I do not believe it is a calling. People are called to Ministry of Word and Sacrament, and make covenants with congregations until another call takes them to another congregation. The deep theological wisdom of that constitutional provision (which interim ministry delays) is the particularity, endurance, and fidelity in the congregation’s annually reaffirmed call to a pastor. There is inward, personal testimony, there is a congregation’s expressed desire, and there is governing body confirmation at the beginning of that call. We believe the Spirit is uniquely present in that process.
Many congregations have been (of necessity) healed by the prudent ministry of interim pastors, but most congregations do not need that type of ministry. In such cases, the congregation’s own life and work are interrupted, stalled, and demoralized, sometimes for well over a year. Most presbyteries apparently require them, and we have come to assume they are a necessity. Not true. I recall (with some amusement) a strong congregation that hired an interim recommended by the executive presbyter. This man wandered around looking for something wrong with the church and the session, until everyone grew sick of it, and they fired him. What they needed during the search process was preaching, teaching, and pastoral care — not therapy.
What is the purpose of interim ministry training? Do we believe that people who have been pastors for 20 or 30 years who still need to learn how to preach, to teach, to lead worship, and to give pastoral care? If they do, then they are not fit for interim ministry, and no amount of training is going to help them.
These words may be difficult to say and hear, and yet I want to keep the conversation going, in COMs, in vacant congregations, and in presbyteries. The whole church is imprisoned in a system that does not work very well. It’s time to step off the treadmill and see the nature of the race for which we are preparing, so that we “will not have run this race in vain.” God loves the Presbyterian Church. The question is, do we?
