Professional ministry?

Apologies in advance. This is a bit of a brain dump.

For one of my classes I'm to write an essay on "what are the implications of 'professional ministry' for the church?" While I've not done much reading for this yet, the question in itself raises several interesting thoughts for me.

1. What is professional? Is it paid, is it ordained or set apart in some way? Is is educated and trained for a role, preforming a 'ministry' in a professional, unpaid capacity. I would see readers, axillary and OLM ministers all as professionals, but none are salaried for their roles.
2. What is ministry? I know, I'm maybe being a little obtuse here, but is that Word and Sacrament, Diaconal or Sunday School Superintendent?
3. What's the church? Is it the broad, catholic, church or The Church of Scotland?I know this is something I'll need to define before I can even get about looking at what 'professional ministry' may look like.

This will be an interesting essay for me. I know one of the (many) reasons I ran away from following the call to ministry was the knowledge it's necessary for any organisation to have leadership, but how that can get in the way of a congregation performing their own individual ministries. I know the Kirk acknowledges the priesthood of all believers and ministry is part of (yet separate from) that.

I also wonder how new expressions of church are affected by 'professional ministry'. Often, as much as a minister may want to get involved in these new expressions (however they are manifested) time can be a limiting factor. It's also good for others who aren't ordained or set apart to set up and try these initiatives. But given the reformed definition of church (where the word is correctly preached and the sacraments properly administered), these new expressions of church aren't, in themselves, church. Under Kirk law, they need a minister involved in some capacity so the sacraments can be administered. Yet that minister could be an OLM doing a professional ministry, but unpaid.

I know there's a proper order thing and I acknowledge that under church law. Yet I wonder if that would occur through God, rather than what people can achieve on their own. Speaking to my latest supervisor the other week, he felt the 'good order' reformation thing, where only ordained ministers can administer the sacraments may be in order that the church is seen and maintained as being reformed. Is it a bit of protectionism on the part of ministers that only they (and not deacons, say) can administer the sacraments? I'm not saying it's wrong, I just wonder if 500 years after the reformation some things which came in then really look more priestly than we'd like to admit?

So, professionals don't have to be paid and ministry doesn't have to be full-time word and sacrament. Maybe that in itself could be a liberation for the church? Or a hindrance, depending on how you look at it.

Words matter

I was asked by a member of the congregation at Caledonia Kirk what part of a service I found hardest to prepare. I responded, with all sincerity, it was selecting the hymns, and this is why.

When I chose the hymns, I want to get the right balance between conteporary and traditional. I try to have a pattern in the hymns, so they come in the 'right' order - approach, confession, thanksgiving, response, sending. And I want the theology expressed in the words of the hymns to reflect the broad theme of the service.

Sometimes this comes easier than others. It depends on a number of factors, including the setting, knowledge of the congregation (don't want to give them too many unfamiliar hymns in one service!), theme, bible readings etc. Sometimes even as I've announced a hymn I've not been convinced it's been the right choice, but as it's sung it is absolutely right (oh, the amazing power of the Holy Spirit). But I do think it is so important to try to get it right, especially the words.

I believe many people get more of their theology from hymns than they even do from any sermon preached or eloquent prayer delivered. The words with music speak to people in a different way than words alone. They can speak to the soul as well as the intellect. And people remember the words because they are set to music. The combination is as important as the words alone.

There are a lot of contemporary hymns used at Caledonia Kirk. Some had beautiful words, which express great wonder, awe, praise to God. But the tunes are mince. Does no one do what Charles Wesley did anymore and take popular tunes (in his case, drinking tunes - I love that guy just for that!) and use them as the skeleton to build hymns on? When a tune is known to people, they can learn the hymn easier and it can resonate better in their souls. Just take "Christ is our light", set to the Highland Cathedral (okay, so the tune's 30 years old, but we are singing hymns which are attributed to King David, so that is pretty up-to-date!). It speaks to people precisely because of the combination between the words and tune. They compliment each other in ways which cannot be explained, only felt.

I also think there's a lot of strange theology about in hymns. Today there was the line "Christ became sin for us" from "Oh to see the dawn", by Keith Getty and Stewart Townend. Excuse me, Christ became sin? Seriously, is that actually what you meant when you wrote these lyrics Mr Getty and Townend? Really? I'm sorry, but that theology sucks as far as I am concerned. Jesus die to set us free from sin, so how exactly did he become sin? Christ, the only prefect human there has even been who is God incarnate, became sin. No, just no.

So words matter. They matter to me, they matter to the people I am called to lead. But, and I think this is the most important thing, they matter to God. So, it is important I get the right words at the right time in the hymns as well as prayers and sermon and everything else I do. For I am doing it for God.

Put up or shut up

The Church of Scotland is a reasonably broad church. Broader, maybe, than many within even realise, let alone these outwith (whether Christian or not). I thing that's a very positive thing. That way, the Kirk can, hopefully, serve the whole of Scotland through this breath, as well as its parish system.

I am respectful of other traditions, theologies, worship styles within the Kirk. I don't have to agree with someone to respect them - (one of the people I would happy say I admired is Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister. I couldn't stand much of what she actually stood for, but I truly respect that she stood up for what she believed for and took nothing lying down, but I digress!). Wouldn't it be nice if that respect was reciprocated?

Over the past couple of weeks I have heard of various Church of Scotland congregations who don't really approve of the Kirk. They see it as non-scriptural, having lost its way and not being conservative enough. They want the whole Kirk to be like them and don't appreciate that diversity is a good thing, not bad.

Playing a bit of devil's advocate (as is my want, occasionally), if those congregations feel so strongly that they want to leave the Kirk, why don't they? They don't approve of the Kirk, they don't like the Kirk and dislike many of the decisions the Kirk has taken over the last...50 years. If an organisation is that bad, and they no longer feel they can change or influence it, why stay? Especially as I'm sure they could find an appropriate bit of scripture which would indicate that leaving would be the best course of action!

Now, I am not saying they should leave. As I said at the beginning of this post, I like the diversity within the Kirk. If these churches were to leave, some of that would be lost. I just don't understand why they stay, though it may be they realise they couldn't manage on their own. Which is why we are all better together. But, as I see it, they shouldn't take the advantages of being part of the larger organisation, then bite the hand that feeds them, so to speak. I'd respect them more for stepping out in faith on their own, rather than staying and moaning.

Worship Fix

I probably shouldn't say this, but I'm going to anyway. Sometimes, when I'm leading worship I don't actually feel especially worshipful. Okay, it's out now, so I'll explain.

Fortunately, during my second period of co-ordinated field, I did feel I was worshipping as well as leading others in worship. I had also experienced that doing pulpit supply in a couple of locations. So I know it is possible to do both. I very much doubt I could be an effective minister wherever I will serve if I had to get my worship 'fix' elsewhere. That would be just so draining and, I'd imagine, could led to disillusionment and/or burn out. Not good.

During my first placement I found it difficult to be worshipful at times. That arose from a whole load of issues, including knowing I'm being assessed, waiting to be criticised (sometimes, in hindsight, unfairly) and the general style of worship not really being what fitted me. But I didn't seek worship elsewhere, though did appreciate the weekly communion at New College.

During my summer placement, that all changed. The church 'fitted' me. It's not that I wasn't being assessed, but I knew it would be fair and supportive, from congregation and minister alike. There were things they did I hadn't experienced in a 'standard' Sunday service, such as singing a reflective hymn seated, immediately followed by a period of silence (for about 2 minutes). Or shaking hands with the congregation at the start (I never really became comfortable with that, but I could see the merit in it). But there I felt God's presence; was very aware that everything I was doing in worship was me worshipping God and, in doing so, leading others to worship. This summer, there really was nowhere else I would rather have been,

Now, at Caledonia Kirk, I feel the least worshipful I have ever felt. After preaching yesterday, I felt emotionally and physically drained in ways I have never experienced. I suppose its not helped by not being to come to God in the prayers (as they are either so brief they are over before they have begun or feel more like rambling monologues on the prayer leader's pet topic, so it stops being inclusive) or the songs (they don't like me calling them hymns) as not only do I not know them, but I struggle to sing with any sincerity, as I disagree with some of the theology of some. At Eagleside, it was often the hymns which got me to the worship place I needed to be in.

So, what do I do? Well, there's always listening to UCB (which even 6 months ago I would have dismissed out of hand), but that does not really cut it for me, as I feel worship needs to be communal activity. So, I'm seeking out churches near Caledonia Kirk with an earlier morning service, where there is time to get to 'wrok' in time. Though I was tired after preaching yesterday, I dread to think how drained I would have been if not for my worship fit earlier that morning.

And, at the other church in the city, I was asked on the way out if I sang in a choir. And that church has a very good choir. No, I won't be joining, as I'm just a wee bot busy at the mo!

Sunday's reflection

I preached for the first time at Caledonia Kirk yesterday. Generally, I felt it went well, though I suspect my theology wasn't 'in sync' with that the congregation are used to.

I didn't get much feedback, but that which I did get was positive, with some people specifically coming to speak to me. The best comment was "tell is like it is, sister!", which was great.

I know I was nervous, but have now learnt how to use that to my benefit. For me, that nervousness keeps me grounded and reminds me I feel this is important. From some comments I received, it would seem most do not pick up on the nerves, which is good.

I know I come across as confident when I preach. I hope that's the right sort of confidence and does not become an arrogant or cocky one. Given the nerves and that fact I am concerned about that happening would suggest that's unlikely, though I suspect there may have been people in the congregation who were surprised at my confident delivery. Nothing explicitly was said, but just a feeling I got.

There was a couple of very minor errs. So small, I'm just commenting to acknowledge them, but not get too concerned with. If anyone (except my supervisor - well, they are supposed to picking up on these things) noticed I would be surprised.

I felt the message was clear, both in terms of content and presentation. A couple of people who did comment did confirm this.

So, all in all, I feel I delivered a well thought out, constructed and delivered sermon. It picked up the theme I was given (your past is not your future), though reflected my theology and understanding of God. It may not have reflected some of the congregations views, but I have to preach what is true to me, otherwise I will lose all integrity, and what God is calling me to say.

It'll be interesting discussing it with my supervisor.

It never ceases to amaze me how I seem to have been given a special gift for preaching. I wonder what God has planned to do with me through it. Knowing me, rattle a few cages...