When a Ministry Ends
The title of this post references the rather well publicized decision by Brad Braxton to leave the famed Riverside Church pulpit after just two months of ministry. From what I've heard there was rancor from the very beginning, much of it having to do with salary (don't want to pay the pastor too much).
Randy Balmer, a well known and highly respected historian of American religion, has written an interesting piece on the Braxton resignation at Religion Dispatches. He references his own part-time ministry of one year as an Episcopal priest, a position he terminated after one year after it became clear that the congregation (or at least some in leadership) was making him decide between the church and his marriage. Clergy families often get in the line of fire.
But back to the article -- Balmer notes the way it once was:
Not so very long ago in American history, a bright and promising young man, if he felt so called—and even a few women—viewed ordination as a path toward social status and cultural influence. Clergy held moral authority within the congregation and the community. When colleges and other institutions looked for leadership, they often tapped ministers to be their presidents and to serve on boards of directors.
But, now, having lost the prestige of the past, clergy have taken refuge in the ranks of the professionals -- albeit not of the highly paid type.
Balmer then speaks of the challenges of ministry:
Although the vast majority of churchgoers, in my experience, are decent and kind, parishioners less charitably disposed can find ingenious ways to make a minister’s life miserable: criticism of everything from comportment and grooming to sermons, salary and administrative style. If you’re decisive, you’re an autocrat; if you seek to build consensus, you’re a weak leader. Late in my father’s very successful ministerial career, the board of elders in a large and affluent congregation demanded that he personally reimburse the church for the photocopies he made for church business.
Some congregants, intent on disruption, can be more devious, striking by indirection. In my case (and, as I understand it, at Riverside), dissident members leveled criticisms at the minister’s wife and family. I’m inclined to follow the injunction of Jesus to “turn the other cheek” when criticisms are directed at me, especially when I’m confident that I’ve acted honorably. It’s a different matter, however, when the people I love come under attack.
The issues raised by Balmer are true -- those of us who have served as pastors/ministers/priests/rabbis, have all faced such issues at some point in our ministries. It usually doesn't happen within the first 2 months, but it happens. I expect that we could fill a lengthy comments section with horror stories, and I could tell a few of my own.
Ministry is not an easy job, as I said. You have to balance a lot of competing needs and desires -- some of it is generational, some political, some theological, and a lot of other possibilities. Balmer writes of his own experience:
In the course of my professional career, which spans a quarter of a century, I’ve been a teacher, a journalist, an editor, an author, and a documentary filmmaker. For more than a decade I served as chair of my academic department, a challenge often compared with the task of herding cats. Nothing approached the difficulty of negotiating church politics and leading a congregation.
There is truth to his statements, but there are rewards in this life as well. Indeed, the rewards are often found in more intangible ways, like being at a bedside when someone dies, and you know that your prayers and presence have made a difference or at memorial service -- you know that what you've done for a family is greatly appreciated.
I do feel for Dr. Braxton and his family. I can't imagine what he's going through -- even though I myself faced the decision to resign from a pastorate -- but that was after 5 1/2 years. So, I welcome your thoughts on the Braxton resignation and on the joys and the challenges of pastoral ministry.
Comments
Obviously there is more to the story... there are theological, cultural, and racial overtones to the split, and any pastor following an 18 year pastorate is bound to have difficulties. Still, the salary issues do sound scandalous at best
All in all, it is a sad state of affairs and a bad face for a church with a significant history.
I think it is not fair to the many well-meaning and kind members of a congregation to resign without ever having called upon them to intervene in a good way. Instead of suffering in silence, a clergy person should raise these issues publicly, provide suggestions for how congregants could intervene to stop whatever negativity has been happening, and give them some kind of deadline beyond which, if the problem has not been solved, the clergy person will consider resigning. It's usually the case that most people don't know what is going on, and if they did, they'd wish to stop the negativity. But they need to be told precisely what is happening that is hurting the clergy person, what that clergy person needs, and smart suggestions about what an ordinary congregant could do to change a toxic reality. This process can be emotionally depleting, but it may also reveal to the clergy person in question the depths of support s/he has in the congregation, and that may compensate for the nit-picking of the few negative people that are part of most congregations. Don't underestimate the amount of love and caring that is also there in the pews,and don't disempower it by assuming that people won't respond to an appeal for help if it is given with humility and with clear directions about how to manifest tha help. There are too many wonderful clergy who have faced these problems--it's time for us to stand up and fight back with love and with openness about what we are facing!
Apparently those original numbers are highly inflated -- though the $460,000 number is pretty high. But is it appropriate for the community? I simply don't know?
But I'm wondering if the money issue covers other issues that would put the onus on the congregation? I don't know the whole story.
And to Steve,
I hear the point -- but I'm wondering if this wasn't poisoned from the very beginning. As you and I know, if you go into a situation that is already stacked against you, then there's going to be trouble.
People are free to earn as much as they can, and I would never begrudge someone getting their earned share of the pie, no matter how large the piece - within reason.
But to my way of thinking, a ministerial calling is not the same as any other job. et me also acknowledge that the services of a minister may well be worth $460,000.00 to a congregation. However, given the nature of pastoral ministry as both servant/ambassador of Christ and as shepherd of Christ's flock, I just don't see how such enormous income, together with the wealth of possessions and the lavish lifestyle it leads to are appropriate for such a humble calling.
If such a well paid minister were not of a patrician temperament when they came into such income, they must soon graduate into it as they wallow in the lap of luxury. They are human.
"Comfortable," even "very comfortable" is fine, but wealthy is a problem. How does one maintain a hold on a servant mentality when negotiating for such vast sums of income. How can one counsel the poorest among us with any humility while looking forward to his chauffeur driven ride home, to relax in his mansion awaiting the arrival of his children from the posh private school.
I suppose that such a minister could still maintain some degree of humility when serving those who are wealthier than he is.
John
I think we need to recognize that we don't know how the salary fits within the context of the congregation. My sense is that it is not at all above the congregation salary. I would venture to say that in comparison to the salary levels of his congregation, his might be middle of the road. It is probably expected of him to send his kids to certain schools, etc.
And, it might be useful to point out that Edgar Dewitt Jones, founder of our congregation did not drive and had to be driven by someone.
I agree that the salary is high -- but I think the bigger point is what is going on in this congregation. Was there a divide even before he took the position?
When there is that much money on the table, it becomes all about the money and the lifestyle such money can buy; and that lifestyle is not conducive to a servant mentality.
Ecclesial wealth, its acquisition, and its abuse by ministers of the church, is what ultimately brought about the Reformation. "You cannot serve two masters."
John
there obviously is more than finances going on - although the finances may be related to the other issues. The unfortunate thing is that the finances become the issue that catches everyone's attention and allows the other issues to be ignored which are cultural and theological.
Wallace Smith, president of Palmer School of Theology, has said that the closest analogy for an African American pastor is that of village chief and that in a significant way, the congregation shows its strength and wealth by having the pastor be very wealthy... thus the reason for a ghetto church with very poor members while the pastor dresses in hand made suits and drives a mercedes. The role in the church and in the community is very different than in a typical anglo church. So we have significant cultural issues. Plus the African American church often brings a very different theological mix - a commitment to social justice (especially if you remove gender and sexuality issues from the table) and a conservative theology - another significant change for Riverside which is deeply rooted in white liberalism. Add to all of that the apparent lack of transparency of the entire process and it was a recipe for disaster.
And FWIW, I would expect that with the changes in the demographics of the church $460K is certainly not the median salary in that church.