Viewpoint is designed to allow readers an opportunity to express opinions regarding matters of interest to their colleagues. The ideas expressed in this feature are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church or the opinions of the MINISTRY staff. You are invited to submit your ideas to Viewpoint on any topic; however, the editors reserve the right to make a final decision regarding the appropriateness or suitability for publication. —Editors.
The church is beginning to realize that more hangs on a balanced, professional pastoral ministry than meets the eye. Consequently the work of the pastor is fast becoming the focus of numerous organizational studies. Even though we recognize the far-reaching influence of the pastor on the total life of the church, we seldom have thought about the reverse: the influence the organization has on the life and work of the pastor. We cannot totally credit a pastor's attitudes and actions to his environment, but neither can we totally ignore its influence. Any effort to develop a more professional pastoral ministry must take into consideration the pastor's relationship with the organization.
Robert C. Worley writes in The Gathering of Strangers: "It is a common assumption that individuals shape institutions. Therefore the prescription that is made for every church problem is to get rid of the trouble maker. . . . We have not asked how institutions shape persons. We do not perceive the institution as the source of our difficulties. We do not think institutionally, but individualistically. For this reason, when a minister is in trouble, or a lay person is seen as a problem, we locate the problem in the person. It becomes a personality or character problem rather than an insti tutional one."—pp. 15, 20.
Could it be that many problems hindering the developing of a more professional pastoral ministry in our church can be traced to the way the organization relates to the pastor? This brief article will endeavor to deal with some of the problems that may be solved only in the context of the relationship between the pastors and church organizations.
For example, if it is true that church growth can take place only at the local church level, and if it is true that such growth is the primary purpose of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, then it seems obvious that the work of the pastor is at least as important, if not more important, than any other activity within the organization. Recognizing this and making it a reality would be a gigantic step toward the development of a more professional pastoral ministry.
Could it be that the organization inadvertently is depreciating the pastoral ministry and encouraging the perception that it is less important than other forms of ministry by encouraging pastors to move away from the center of denominational church life found at the local church and toward "higher" levels of organizational structure? Some pastors feel indirect, and at times very direct, pressure placed on them to leave pastoral ministry for activities more at the periphery of church life. (Jere Webb refers to this in a letter to the editor in the October, 1982, issue of MINISTRY: "Having made a lifetime commitment to pastoral evangelism, 1 deeply resent all the pressure in our system to move into something else in order to progress 'up the ladder.'")
The church organization tends to act as a magnet, drawing the most promising men away from the pastoral work to which they are called and which they love, to administrative and departmental ministry. Because of the expectation by church leaders, and even by members, that successful pastors move into so-called larger responsibilities, many of those who remain in pastoral ministry feel unappreciated and unrecognized. The temptation, then, is to perform in a way that corresponds to their perception of the church's view of their work. The result? A less than professional pastoral ministry.
Another vital issue is the supervision of pastoral ministers. Organizationally, we do not really understand how to relate properly to the pastor or what basic principles should guide us in supervising his work. The church needs a model for supervising the work of the pastor. At present a hodgepodge of supervisory models is being used. Union and division levels of organization seem to give little guidance or direction to conference administrators in this area. Any supervisory or managerial model seems to be acceptable. Little attention seems to be given to the fact that the organization relates to the pastor in a way significantly different from the way it relates to other ministerial activities.
Although it seems evident that of all church workers the highest demands are placed upon the pastor, we don't seem to recognize that he usually receives the least support in terms of on-the-job help, professional training, and financial sup port. This indicates that we are following an industrial, or sales, model of management more than a model comparable to other professions within the church and society. I am not saying the pastor responds to all the demands placed upon him and always performs effectively, but I am saying that more responsibility for the advancement of the church rests upon his shoulders than upon any other individual within the organization. Consequently we need to look carefully at the way administrators oversee the work of the pastor.
It seems to me that the relationship between hospitals and physicians could serve as a legitimate model for the church's interaction with pastors. A number of similarities are evident. The Christian physician is a healer, as is the pastor, a physician of not only the body but of the mind and soul. Physicians work in an organizational or institutional setting similar in many ways to that in which a pastor serves. The physician cannot function very well without the well-structured administrative and sup port team of the hospital. Neither can the pastor function effectively without the administrative support team of the church organization. The question is: Has the church organization really provided a viable support system for the pastor? Let's probe the relationship of the hospital to the physician to see what might be applicable.
The primary work of the hospital is patient care, and the physician is the individual to whom the hospital looks to guarantee the achievement of that objective. Consequently the hospital works to provide an adequate and effective support system for the physician so that the objective can be achieved. That is not to say the hospital does not supervise the physician's work. It certainly does! Hospital administration holds him accountable for performing according to the standards agreed upon by everyone functioning in the hospital, including the physicians. The hospital also plays a large role in deciding what the objectives of the institution will be, objectives that are clearly shared by the physicians as well.
The hospital, then, supervises the work of everyone in the hospital to assure the achievement of the corporate objectives. It carefully monitors and reviews the performance of the physicians continuously. Regular evaluations take place. If a physician fails to perform according to acceptable standards, the hospital tries to help him improve his practice. However, if a physician does not respond properly after help is given, discipline is administered and privileges can be taken away. The final step would be to recommend to the proper organizations that his license be revoked. It appears to me that this approach has many parallels to the supervision of the pastoral ministry.
The hospital also takes the responsibility for the physician's continuing education. It asks him to demonstrate in writing that he is keeping abreast of what is happening in the medical world.
Likewise, the hospital provides a much-needed support system for the physician. All of the auxiliary services of the hospital exist because they are essential to the successful work of the physician. The anesthesiologist, the nursing staff, the laboratory, the equipment—all are provided by the hospital, without which the physician could never achieve his personal objectives or the corporate objectives of the hospital. Physicians seldom practice apart from the support system or the administrative structure provided by the hospital. Congregational churches, while maintaining strong membership growth rates in some places, certainly are not consistently sharing as balanced and unified a mes sage as are churches having stronger organizational structures and support systems.
We need to recognize that the pastor is performing the primary function of the organization—church growth—and that no one else has direct responsibility for this objective as he has. All the support systems and activities of the denomination achieve zero church growth unless the pastor functions in a way that will bring that about at the local church level. The pastor's work in this respect is very similar to that of the physician. All the support systems, administrative work, and sophisticated modern equipment of the hospital would achieve little if there were no physician to use them in his efforts to achieve patient care.
Wouldn't a viable management model within the church similar to that implemented by hospitals generate greater pastoral motivation? Physicians aren't generally noted for their lack of motivation. I think it is because of their independence, their freedom, the opportunity to develop their own professional careers, their ability to effect their own professional growth, and their standing within the medical community. (It is interesting to note, as well, that physicians are the highest-paid people within the medical profession.
While it would not be functional to have the pastors charge local churches for their services, we could recognize the pastor as a professional by the way we remunerate him. Paying him the least of any other ministerial worker within the organization is certainly a poor way to communicate our belief that he is a professional and is performing the most important function within the organization. )
What, then, are some of the practical things the organization can do to develop a more professional and effective pastoral ministry?
We could get serious about continuing education for pastors. There is much talk about this in the church, but little substance. Beyond the M.Div., limited opportunity or tangible encouragement is given pastors to become true professionals, either practically or theologically. We cannot expect the pastor, without support and help from the organization, to break away from his heavy responsibilities and get this training on his own. A few will do so, but not many. Even the physician will not usually continue his professional education without the help and support of various levels of organization within the medical profession.
I would suggest that funds be budgeted for the professional development of the pastoral ministry within each conference. Harding Hospital, on whose board I serve, spends 10 percent of its annual budget for the professional development of the hospital staff! If the Ohio Conference budgeted a similar amount of its salary and expense budget for the professional development of its ministerial ranks, it would spend approximately $250,000 a year on human resource development. We have managed to budget a meager $20,000 in 1983 for this important work. That will, however, provide assistance to only approximately 20 percent of our workers.
Not only should money be budgeted for the development of a professional pastoral ministry, but time as well should be allocated. I believe we should give the pastors time off each year for continuing education without considering it vacation time and without making them feel guilty about being away from their responsibilities for a week, a month, or even a year of professional training in some cases! Colleges and universities recognize that a teacher cannot keep abreast of the research and study in his area of teaching ministry, nor can he do significant research resulting in publication, without regular sabbatical leaves. Consequently teachers in our colleges and seminaries are customarily given regular sabbaticals. Have we ever thought of doing the same for the pastoral minister? It is difficult to under stand why we have not, considering their great responsibility for accomplishing the mission of this church. In Ohio we are moving in this direction.
Given the current situation, is it any wonder that the thought leaders of this denomination and the "movers and shakers" are often individuals other than pastors? It seems to me that if we developed the pastoral ministry so that the pulpit became the primary power within the church and pastors the dominant thought leaders both practically and theologically, we would have a more balanced theological posture and less compromise with liberal trends within the church today. It is note worthy that those pastors who have truly become professionals and who have spoken to the theological issues within the church through dynamic preaching and the publication of articles and books have had a very positive and balancing influence.
In an effort to achieve greater productivity, church organizations are some times tempted to move in the same direction that secular business organizations are moving—an emphasis on more organizational and administrative structure and a closer supervision of personnel. Students of organizational development are beginning to realize that the result of this growing administrative structure is less freedom and independence for the workers and employees, with generally negative results. As organizational structures increase, personal satisfaction, fulfillment, and motivation decrease. Workers begin to feel they are simply a wheel in a machine, being used to achieve the goals and objectives of an impersonal organization. Finding little satisfaction and fulfillment, they often develop a defensive behavior that not only refuses to cooperate with the system but works to sabotage it.
Pastors are not immune to these attitudes. We must find a way to tear down the fences, build a consciousness of individual freedom and responsibility, and allow the creativity of independent action. Only then will pastors begin to feel that they have some control over their own lives and that they are truly in the hands of God, not men. Only as the church develops a professional pastoral ministry and relates to the pastor as a professional, will this ever happen. I believe in the implementation of management principles. However, they must be built around the model of a professional pastoral ministry rather than that of a production worker or a salesperson.
The motivations that drive the pastoral ministry of the church must be higher and greater than the things of this earth. The incentives of position and power will never bring the quality results we want in the pastoral ministry. Promotion to "higher" levels of organization, which in effect moves a man away from the very thing he was called to do and that brings the greatest satisfaction to his heart and life, will never work effectively within the church organization. Why? First of all, because it is the wrong kind of motivation. Secondly, because, practically speaking, most pastors know they will never have that opportunity.
Our church must develop a philosophy of pastoral ministry that recognizes the pastor as a true professional and the pastoral ministry as at least equal to any other form of ministry within the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Only as we recognize the pastor as a professional, relate to him as a professional, provide the necessary support system that will enable him to truly become a professional, and then hold him accountable for acting and per forming like a professional, will we ever realize the full potential of the commit ted, caring pastoral ministry serving the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
