{neurotribe.net}: ::Emergent - Issues from the street... - Sustainability (in terms of employment, paying the bills etc) III

::Emergent - Issues from the street... - Sustainability (in terms of employment, paying the bills etc) III

[Part of an ongoing series in an attempt to gain some information about issues faced by emerging church people.] I was hoping Phil from Signposts would weigh in on this as we had some good conversation around it yesterday.

He was saying that to really release effective ministry into the local community, one had to put on paid staff. He suggested that this did not have to be full time, and discussed how NCCC generally has part timers.

The fascinating aspect of conversation though was that when Phil was talking about paying people in emergent work, he was talking about paying people to run social engagement related ministry stuff, not what most (if not all of us) would presume which would be your pastor/teacher/sermoniser type. Now this is very interesting.

It is a difficult patch in the conversation because there are very few who have commented or emailed me who are actually (a) involved in an emergent context who (b) acutally have access to cash to (c) get paid. So, those of you who are being paid, what do you spend your time doing may I ask?

Those of you who are not being paid, and maybe I need to reflect on this and then respond myself, but if you were to get paid, what would you spend the time doing? Be specific to. And those of you who are not getting paid, if money was offered you, what would you do?

Posted by Stephen @ 4:18 PM

Comments:

OK, I'm entering the conversation a bit late, so I should give a bit of background to myself...employed full time by an 'established church' to do a mix of traditional ministry and 'emerging church' stuff. Also work part time, study, bring up kids etc etc

The terms emerging, missional, established and whatever other labels we have are, in my mind and experience, largely irrelevent to the people I see in my street, at the park, doing the shopping and so on. Thus I don't think the distinctions really exist - there is simply "church". Jesus loves it as a groom loves a bride, so that's good enough for me. Thank God that there are an ever increasing number to cater for ever increasing sub cultures.

Anyway...back to topic (sorry about the wandering). In "emergent" mode I am currently paid to inform, educate and train interested members of our church community. To commission, release and resource leaders of emerging communities. A slow process for sure, but one that, after five or so years, is starting to bear fruit.

My church doesn't pay me TO do these things. They pay me so I CAN. Perhaps that is a discussion for another time...

# posted by

Matt Glover : 11:22 PM

Sorry been a bit busy in my first week back from hols :)

I guess my point is this:

If the emerging church is essentially about the "worship event" then I agree there is little need for paid staff. But in my experience if you want to be involved in church based missional engagement then having people who are "set aside" for leadership, administration etc is important.

There are obviously many ways this can be done and the problem with many of these discussions is that we quickly move to a either/or argument to proove our point when we should be celebrating that there are many different models that will be needed for our new missional context.

Having said that, consider the following:

- an emerging church is led by only lay leaders and focuses on encouraging mission in the lifestyle of their participants.

- an emerging church sets aside somone or people to organise and run missional programs

- an emerging church sets aside someone or people to help lead the Church

- an emerging church sets aside an administrator while having unpaid ministry staff.

All of these examples, I think are valid.

phil
www.signposts.org.au

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:46 PM

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

# posted by

Vic : 11:50 PM

I wonder if it could be a little dependant upon the type of mission we're talking about. Some mission can be quite programatic in nature, in these cases sometimes participants in it need to put aside significant time and energy to do it - making funds available to support them can enable them to do so.

However other mission can be very relational in nature and the type of thing that happens in the run of mill life interactions that we all have at work, play, study, home etc. Perhaps this type of mission is less in need of funds being set aside for it.

I think both ways are valid.

# posted by

Darren Rowse : 11:52 PM

Darren, that style of mission is what I was trying to get at with my first example in the list. I agree both are valid.

I guess my point is that (and I know you are not saying this) overreactions to staff, buildings blah blah are common in the emerging church. While the use and reasons for these resources should be critqued - sometimes I feel the emerging church discussion can degenerate into a fairly - dare I say - immature discussion.

I am not sure I am articulating this well but I think you know what I mean.

# posted by

Phil McCredden : 10:08 AM

Contributors

Translate {neurotribe.net}

When it all seems too much...

Misseo Dei Bloggers...

Blogs I read regularly

Bio...

Blogerly stuff

Archives