1

DEVELOPING PART-TIME MINISTRY POSITIONS

FROM WITHIN THE CONGREGATION

Presented to the WELS Board for Parish Services

January 27, 2005

By Dr. Lawrence O. Olson and Rev. Steven L. Witte

INTRODUCTION

We changed the title. Not much, but perhaps significantly. Our assigned topic was “Developing

Part-Time Staff Ministry Positions From Within the Congregation.” A worthy topic, but a title

that might be misunderstood. One finding of the Staff Ministry Study Committee was that there

seems to be no clear, consistent, broadly-accepted understanding of what a staff minister is.1 To

avoid any misunderstanding, therefore, especially one that might imply a consideration of too

narrow a range of ministry positions, we dropped the word “staff” from the title. What we intend

to present are reflections on developing part-time ministry positions from within our

congregations, regardless of whether they would be understood as “staff ministry” positions or

not.

As we begin our discussions, a few categorical distinctions might be in order. We are not

considering member ministry here. That kind of volunteer service – as Sunday School teachers,

evangelism callers, Bible study leaders, shut-in visitors, and so on – is, by definition, both “part-

time” and “developed from within the congregation.” It is also, of course, public (i.e.

representative) ministry. However, the positions we have in view would be more structured and

formalized, would usually require training at a higher level, and would likely mean that someone

serving in them would be a regular attendee at the congregation‟s weekly staff meeting.

Nor are we considering “traditional” (if one can use that descriptor for a strategy so new, at least

for us in the WELS) staff ministry positions. That kind of vocational service – in a combination

of areas such as youth and family ministry, outreach, member care, discipleship, and

administration – differs from the kind of positions we are considering in several respects. A

typical Martin Luther College staff ministry graduate is trained as an on-campus student in New

Ulm, and then placed into a full-time, compensated ministry position through our synod‟s

Assignment Committee. In the case of the part-time ministry positions we have in view here, an

individual could be placed first and then receive training concurrently with service; the scope of

that service would be tightly focused, and compensation usually would be limited.

A disclaimer: We are not overly concerned about titles or about hard and fast distinctions. Our

concern is simply to provide a fairly clear structural framework for our discussions. Perhaps the

concept of a continuum of representative ministry might be helpful: if member ministry is on the

left and staff ministry is on the right, then the locus for our reflection is in the middle.

1 The report is posted at http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2601&collectionID=869&t=121444

2

BIBLICAL PRECEDENTS

The Bible gives us much information that relates to our topic. It is, however, largely a matter of

examples that are worth considering. This is, of course, descriptive and not prescriptive. As

long as that is understood, and we are careful to distinguish between principles that are absolute

and strategies or approaches that are not, our understanding of the topic will be greatly enriched

by looking at the experiences of God‟s Old Testament and New Testament people.

Old Testament

In early Old Testament times, leaders were developed by God himself through life experiences.

Many of God‟s chosen leaders spent time, usually a long time, at the School of Hard Knocks.

God chiseled Abraham into a leader by asking him to pack up and move sight unseen to a new

land, then had him wait twenty-five years for Isaac to be born, only to demand that Abraham

give his only son back to God. Moses matured for forty years in the desert. Jacob learned while

working for Rachel‟s hand. Joseph grew up while serving in prison. David was trained by God

in the fields of Bethlehem and in the shadow of a giant. God develops spiritual leaders in every

imaginable situation. We must remember that if God is not teaching the lesson, nobody can

really learn it. Personal experiences brought to us by our Divine Instructor cannot be duplicated

in the classroom.

However, there are Old Testament examples of training and developing in our modern sense.

Today we talk of mentoring, apprenticeships, parenting, preparing to take over the family

business, and on-the-job training. Such concepts are as old as the Bible.

Deuteronomy 1:9-18 “Choose some wise, respected men … and appoint them to have authority

… as commanders of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, and as tribal officials.”

Deuteronomy 16:18 “Appoint judges and officials for each of your tribes in every town … and

they shall judge the people fairly.” Brief instructions follow.

In these examples, trust is important. Mature, godly people were chosen. It was expected that

they could and would learn on the job, or grow into the job. Most of their training, in fact, had

been done before they were asked to serve. They had been trained at the University of Life.

Deuteronomy 17:18 “The King is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from

that of the priests, who are Levites. [You can imagine the training process involved if you‟ve

seen the Dead Sea Scrolls.] It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life … so

that he may learn … and not consider himself better than his brothers.”

Developing full-time or part-time staff members from within the congregation means that we

raise up people who are regularly in the Word of God so that they will not consider themselves

better than their brothers. Servant-leadership is not just a New Testament concept. Before Israel

had its first King, the concept of development through Bible reading was passed from Moses to

Joshua.

3

Joshua 1:8 “Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and

night, so that you might be careful to do everything written in it.”

I Samuel 1 Eli trained Samuel as they served in the Temple together.

I Samuel 10:5 “After that you will go to Gibeah of God. … [A]s you approach the town, you

will meet a procession of prophets … with lyres, tambourines, flutes and harps being played

before them … and they were prophesying.”

Exodus 24:13 Moses mentored Joshua: “Then Moses set out with Joshua his aide, and Moses

went up on the mountain of God.”

I Kings 19:19 Elijah mentored Elisha: “So Elijah went from there and found Elisha son of

Shaphat … Then he set out to follow Elijah and became his attendant.”

I Chronicles 28:11 David mentored Solomon: “Then David gave his son Solomon the plans for

the temple … He gave him the plans of all that the Spirit had put in his mind.”

2 Kings 4:38 “Elisha returned to Gilgal … while the company of the prophets was meeting with

him, he said to his servant.…”

I Chronicles 16:38 “He also left Obed-Edom and his sixty-eight associates to minister with

them [as gatekeepers].” What training / development method was used?

I Chronicles 6:31 “These are the men David put in charge of the music of the house of the

LORD after the ark came to rest there. They ministered with music.…” What training /

development method was used?

I Chronicles 25:6 “All these men were under the supervision of their fathers for the music of the

temple of the LORD, with cymbals, lyres, and harps … Asaph, Jeduthun and Heman were under

the supervision of the King.”

Nehemiah 7 “After the wall had been rebuilt … the gatekeepers and the singers and the Levites

were appointed. I put in charge of Jerusalem my brother Hanani, along with Hananiah …

because he was a man of integrity and feared God more than most men do. Also appoint

residents of Jerusalem as guards, some at their posts and some near their houses.” The

spiritual quality of the person is mentioned, not the work training process.

The training and development of workers is not discussed much in the Old Testament. It is often

assumed. Several styles of development are hinted at, and a few methods are mentioned. The

particular kind of training and development that may have been offered does not seem to be as

important as getting the job done, whatever that job happened to be. Leaders moved swiftly with

the appointment of qualified, trusted people who could assist both in oversight and in carrying

out the work. Those who were appointed spread the work out quickly, and took care of

explanation and training on an as-needed basis.

4

New Testament

Acts 6:1-7 This section could be considered either as the conclusion to the first portion of

Luke‟s account in Acts, which deals with the early period of the church in Jerusalem, or as the

introduction to the second portion, which conveys reports concerning three pivotal individuals:

Stephen, Philip, and Saul. Indeed, it may be both.

The Jerusalem church was a large and growing congregation; “the number of disciples was

increasing,” and it became increasingly difficult for the Twelve – who were serving in roles

approximate to, but not exactly the same as, our parish pastors today – to get everything done.

The result was that “the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews

because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.”

The reaction of the Twelve is illustrative of a number of positive points. They took the

complaint seriously, and did not simply dismiss it as “more whining from those folks who are

always complaining.” They examined their own role in the problem, acknowledged it, and then

approached it from the perspective of priorities: “It would not be right for us to neglect the

ministry of the Word of God in order to wait on tables ... [we] will give our attention to prayer

and the ministry of the word.” While clearly articulating priorities, they did not look down on

ministry matters of secondary importance: “the daily distribution of food” and “the ministry of

the word of God” are both dignified with the same Greek word, diakonia. They involved the

members of the group in finding a solution, and presented a “proposal” instead of just imposing

their own choices: “Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the

Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them.” And, on a tactical level, those

chosen “from among [them]” for this responsibility – Stephen, Philip, Procurus, Nicanor,

Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas – all had Greek names. While we cannot be definitive, this would

clearly seem to imply that they were all from the group that felt they were being discriminated

against. Selecting them as the new staff members ensured that the interests of the Grecian Jews

would be represented equitably.

A critical aspect of the strategic approach chosen to provide a staffing solution was the

credentials for the positions: “full of the Spirit and wisdom.” It must not be overlooked that

there were two general qualifications: a spiritual maturity that ensured that the candidates would

be guided by God‟s Holy Spirit, and a practical aptitude that ensured that the candidates would

have the skills necessary to carry out the multi-faceted organizational and administrative tasks

required to achieve their program objectives.

The Seven have been traditionally known as “the deacons,”2 although diakonos itself is not used

here, but the cognate forms diakonia and diakonein. We do not know whether their service in

ministry expanded beyond this early “meals-on-wheels” program, although Stephen and Philip –

who are the only two mentioned subsequently – clearly did more, and also carried out spiritual

ministry (cf. Acts 6:8; 8:5; 8:26-40). Nor do we know if this service developed into the diaconal

ministry that Paul provides qualifications for in 1 Timothy 3, as some commentators suggest,

although it may well have. What we do know, however, is that the Jerusalem congregation

added people to its ministry staff from their own membership.

2 Luther referred to them as such in his 1528 lectures on 1 Timothy; D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische

Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: Hermann Bőhlhaus Nachfolger, 1909), WA 26:59.

5

An expanding ministry in Jerusalem led to an important advance in the way that they organized

themselves for ministry. They showed a willingness to adjust their procedures, adapt their

structures, and adopt new forms of ministry for the sake of the advancement of the Gospel. And

it worked: “So the word of God spread.” The experience of the Jerusalem congregation

provides a precedent for ministry positions that were developed from within the congregation.

Acts 14:23 When Paul and Barnabas reached the furthest extent of the first missionary journey,

they returned via many of the places that they had visited on the outbound leg, and Luke reports,

“Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting,

committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.” This practice is consistent with

Paul‟s comment to Titus, “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what

was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you” (Titus 1:5). The record

thus suggests that the norm in the early church was for raising up leaders from among those who

were members of the churches that were being planted.

HISTORICAL EXAMPLES

The Puritans – 1630s

John Winthrop was the first Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. He essentially founded

Boston, and he set up an entire “church way of life” in New England. He “called” one full-time

clergyman per congregation. These were professional ministers, well-trained in England, mostly

at Cambridge University. They were hand-picked because not all well-educated clergy in

England were thought to be “worthy” by the Puritans of New England. For example, only 94 of

344 in Essex were labeled “good and faithful preachers.” The rest were thought to be gamblers

and drunkards.3

In addition, each local Puritan church was expected to raise up “prophets” from its own group.

Each prophet would be selected from among the mature men, and they would “prophesy” as

needed. This might include conducting entire worship services, especially in outlying areas.

John Winthrop was a prophet for the churches in and around Boston. In England he had served

as a local magistrate administering the king‟s justice. His secular training included a degree

from Trinity College, one of the colleges of Cambridge University. His spiritual training

consisted of church attendance, personal reading, introspection, and prayer; he received no

formal training as a clergyman.

In addition to priests (clergymen) and prophets (preachers / worship leaders), a third category

was that of “instructor,” or Bible teacher. This was a layperson who would travel from town to

town giving lectures, usually during weekdays from about 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. John Winthrop

passed a law limiting the teaching time because people were neglecting their secular work. Such

teachers were most often grown from within the group. Puritan catechism was to be taught by

the parents. Puritan parents, unfortunately, were not faithful in the instruction process, so local

schools were established. Professional full-time teachers were then brought in to perform this

duty.

3 Francis J. Bremer, John Winthrop: America’s Forgotten Founding Father (New York: Oxford University Press,

2003), 85.

6

Note: It was not unusual for Puritans to go to church 4-6 hours on Sunday, and have two or three

family devotions per day, as well as personal quiet time for reflection each day. It was not

difficult to identify or raise up spiritual people to preach or teach in such an atmosphere. This

seems similar to Old Testament Israel, which had – at least at some points in time and place –

such an atmosphere from which to raise up spiritual leaders.

The Amish – 1830s

The Pennsylvania Amish raised up pastors from their own group. The young men would take

turns as readers, song leaders, or preachers in the service. The Amish would meet in each other‟s

homes; there were no church buildings. The most capable men who “showed promise” in these

house meetings would be asked to have their name placed on the ballot as the next pastor. The

pastor had his own farm and family to tend to; he was not expected to “do all the preaching.”

The older, more experienced pastor trained the younger man who was selected by ballot. The

process might be described as an apprenticeship.

WELS Northern Wisconsin District – 1860s

“I came to town Woodville, ten miles east of Appleton. Pastor Jaekel, whom I visited for two

days, wishes the early takeover of Neenah as urgent for him, so that he could give up part of his

very large mission area. To serve nine or ten congregations exceeds the strength of a man”

(Gottlieb Thiele, Reiseprediger).4 How did the lay people serve one another in the absence of an

ordained clergyman? One recently retired ELS pastor, Jim Olson, faced situations such as the

Reisprediger – a century later. During his years of starting more than 12 congregations from

scratch in Peru, Chile, and North America, Pastor Olson operated with this core value, “The Lord

has provided in the congregation all the resources, both people and finances, to do the work he is

calling the local church to do.” One solution Pastor Olson used in the 1960s during his

prolonged absences was to have the leading Sunday School teacher of the congregation (a man)

conduct the worship services.

The Hmong – 1950s to present

Jonah (Choa pau) Lee was born in Laos in 1957. He was introduced to Christianity by his

father-in-law about 1980. In the Christian and Missionary Alliance, the Hmong group usually

chooses three “elders” to run the affairs of the church family. They choose a “preacher” from the

group itself. The preacher may also serve as an elder, although that seems to be an exception. In

1980, after coming to California, Jonah was one of six young men chosen to become a preacher /

teacher in the Hmong group. These young men sought training in America wherever and

however they could get it. Most read books, visited with other church leaders, and studied part-

time at theological schools during the summers. They preached or taught whenever someone

would ask them to. Their personal devotional life was very important to them, and was in itself

an essential part of their training and development. Such men would communicate with one

another, but not mentor one another in any formal way.

The International Boston Church of Christ – 1980 to present

Founded by Kip McKean with thirty people, this group has grown to well over a million around

the world. The training and development of leaders is done one-to-one. Men disciple men and

4 David Sherbarth and Mark Gass, eds., Northward in Christ: A History of the Northern Wisconsin District of the

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (Northern Wisconsin District, 2000), 25.

7

women disciple women; husbands and wives and families disciple one another. The only real

textbook is the Bible, along with some basic study guides written by church leaders. Maturing

leaders are encouraged to seek out books on church history to round out their education. The

head of a church is called the “lead evangelist.” Pastoring, in our sense of the word, is done by

laypeople and the church family itself as needed. Each person is accountable to someone “above

them,” and is working with someone else “below” them. When a group is large enough, the lead

evangelist becomes full-time paid. The second paid person is a full-time administrator. The

groups never own property or buildings, and there are no other paid positions in the church.

When the group is large enough, they “hive off” to a nearby city, having raised up their own new

lead evangelist from within the group.

CONTEMPORARY EXAMPLES

Case Study A

“Antioch Lutheran Church” is an 80-year old urban congregation located in the Midwest. It is

served by one pastor, “Andy Anthony,” and has an average worship attendance of 250. The

elementary school has a staff of four teachers, and there are 40 students enrolled. As Antioch

examined its ministry, it identified a long-standing weakness in outreach, especially in the area

of eyeball-to-eyeball contact with prospects. The congregation decided that the only real way to

get at that problem was with additional part-time staffing.

Antioch had a member, “Al Anderson,” who had already demonstrated leadership in the

congregation. Al had the ability to retire in his early fifties, and he had plans to work part-time

somewhere. His spirituality, his interest in evangelism, and his Bible study leadership led the

pastor to carry on informal discussions with him about a part-time position, discussions that were

then broadened to include the church council. A formal ministry position description was

developed, and the council recommended to the voters that the congregation establish the

position and call Al to fill it. Those recommendations were approved and enacted, and Al

accepted the call as congregational evangelist. He completed the Congregational Evangelist

Program, and subsequently decided to enroll in the Staff Ministry Program. The congregation

then called him as a staff minister instead of as a congregational evangelist.

Al gets paid an annual salary of $15,000 for 20 hours of work a week, but he often gives the

congregation 40 hours. Al was agreeable to that level of compensation because of a retirement

program that meets his needs and because of his willingness to serve his Savior in an active way

in his retirement. The main focus of his work has remained the same – personal evangelism –

but related duties have shifted, and will continue to shift, depending on what the changing needs

of the congregation are.

Al was already known and trusted within the congregation; unlike bringing in a second pastor or

a staff minister from outside, he was able to hit the ground running, and did not require two or

three years of confidence-building before he could lead effectively. As a congregational

evangelist and now as a staff minister, there has never been an issue about who is in charge. Al

has always been willing to follow Pastor Anthony‟s lead, but at the same time the pastor strives

to give Al complete control over his own areas of ministry, and the pastor views his role in those

8

areas as supportive. On those occasions where they did not share the same vision of ministry,

they have been able to adequately work through those issues, sometimes speaking frankly, but

always as brothers, to each other.

Pastor Anthony views Al as a treasure for Antioch, and if he had the opportunity to make that

choice again, he would do it in a heartbeat. But the key, in his view, is in finding the right

person with the appropriate mix of a strong relationship with Jesus, the desire to serve, the

required intellectual abilities, a servant attitude, love for people, organizational skills, and so on.

Case Study B

“Berea Lutheran Church” is a Sun Belt congregation that has grown and prospered during its 20

years of history. Served by “Bill Banks,” a pastor who has been there for a decade and a half, it

has gone through several building programs, and has added a thriving preschool and child care

center to its ministry. It currently averages 175 in its weekly worship.

Berea actually has three individuals serving on the staff of the congregation who were originally

lay members of the congregation. One of them, “Barbara Bach,” serves as the preschool

director, and she is currently pursuing synodical certification. Her service, however, is in

keeping with the dominant model for our synod‟s early childhood programs, which have been

largely staffed by congregational members. While the overwhelming majority of those positions

are part-time, Barbara‟s is full-time. The idea was initiated by Pastor Banks – he simply

approached her one day and asked if she had ever thought of serving the congregation on a full-

time basis, not really having any idea how they would be able to make that happen. This was

nine or ten years ago; Barbara was immediately interested in the idea, and she quit her job to

work in the preschool the moment they got it started.

Of special interest to us for this case study is the service of “Bob and Betty Birch.” The need for

additional staff support at Berea had been recognized for a long time in the congregation. They

had tried a number of temporary approaches, including several vicars and several staff ministry

interns. The idea of approaching Bob and Betty about serving came from a Parish Assistance

study several years ago. The original thought was for them to help out until Berea was able to

get a permanent staff minister, and then their positions as congregational evangelists would

either end or be reformed to fit the changing needs of the congregation. Both Bob and Betty

have completed the Congregational Evangelist Program.

When Berea realized that it was unable to afford the salary of a full-time staff minister, Bob and

Betty stayed on – willingly – to help in any way that they could. They are supposed to work

about 20 hours a week each, October 15 to May 15 (they are snowbirds from the Midwest), but

overall they probably work more hours than that. The positions have changed considerably since

they started, in large part to provide a better match between their gifts and their service. The

original thought was for them to help in three areas: recruiting and training members for

ministry, developing small group ministries, and organizing their program of outreach to the

unchurched and to straying members. Because neither of them had particular strengths in

organization, they are not asked to do a lot of organizing. It turned out that recruiting members

for ministry was harder than they had thought it would be, so they have focused primarily on

9

developing small groups and on visitation ministry, which seem to be their strengths. Their titles

have morphed to “Lay Ministry Coordinators.”

Bob and Betty will receive about $5600 for their work this year, down about $3000 from last

year. There are three reasons for this: some personality conflicts among the congregational

leadership and Bob and Betty; some members did not like the fact that they were being paid a

monthly salary during the five months that they are up north every year; and the congregation

has had some financial challenges. One of the problems that Bob and Betty have had is that

much of their work is not very visible to the congregation: they visit the shut-ins, widows, and a

large number of unchurched seniors (at least 50 or 60), and those people are not visible to the

leadership. They were willing to take a pay cut, and even said, “We‟d do this for nothing.” But

their salary does make them eligible for WELS VEBA, and they would have had a hard time

getting health insurance elsewhere (they‟re both early retirees and won‟t reach 65 for another

couple of years, and both have existing health problems that made it very difficult to find

insurance).

When they originally planned their work, Pastor Banks had somewhat unrealistic expectations.

He thought that they would be able to serve on a level equal with Barbara, the preschool director,

as highly organized, energetic self-starters who are good with people. That simply was more

than they could handle. It turns out that they have helped the congregation to establish new areas

of ministry, rather than to coordinate existing ministries. The pastor says that that is okay – he

has learned that God wants them to use people where they are rather than trying to fit square

pegs into round holes.

According to Pastor Banks, one disadvantage he anticipated to adding staff in this way was that

the Congregational Evangelist Program expected the pastor to do an awful lot of specialized

training. It worked out fairly well, however, because there were a number of members who were

interested in those more advanced courses, even if they were not interested in becoming

congregational evangelists themselves. The pastor also felt that some of the courses did not

seem to be all that helpful for Bob and Betty in the specific areas of ministry that they have been

working in.

This is the pastor‟s “Lessons I‟ve Learned” list:

1. We have a horrible problem finding willing and capable leaders. Congregational

evangelists don‟t necessarily provide the leadership I may have been looking for. For

one thing, some people just aren‟t leaders, even if they do have training and a divine call.

Sometimes lay people resent the fact that the evangelists get a small salary; one member

told me, “They should be doing that work without being paid to do it.” He seems to be

changing his tune, however, as it has become harder and harder to find people willing to

do anything.

2. It is extremely important to be flexible and realistic in your expectations. People who

are retired often have a lot of time and energy, but they also have other priorities:

grandchildren, travel, friends, and so on. They also can be set in their ways; you have to

adapt to them sometimes.

10

3. I believe strongly that if cultural trends continue the way they are, it will be essential

for growing congregations to hire / call members to take responsibility for certain areas of

ministry. People are increasingly so unwilling to make long-term commitments! One

local church, only a little larger than we are, has seven part-time “pastors” – youth,

children, seniors, women, evangelism, property, and worship – all are on the payroll, all

answer directly to the senior pastor. I think that is the direction our congregation is

heading as well.

4. It is difficult to find system-trained called workers who are willing to adapt to our

culture and our ministry style (and move so far away from the fatherland.) The salary

package makes it hard for a young, lower-middle class congregation like ours to pay for

them anyway. Members who step into paid ministry know the area, have bought into our

mission, understand the pastor, and are willing to “make do” with the limitations we face

in this area.

5. I‟d like to add more people to the staff, and I‟m already starting the training (one man

will probably be our minister of worship someday – we fly him up for the WELS

Worship Conference every three years). When you see someone who has the Spirit-

wrought maturity and commitment to ministry, plant the seed; get them thinking about

ministry. The Lord will find a way to use them, if you just stay open to the possibilities.

Case Study C

“Cross Lutheran Church” is a brand new, non-traditional church in the Southwest, only four

months into holding weekly services. They identified the need for additional staff support

through the realization that they already had huge needs in two areas: (1) Pastor Carl Christopher

needed administrative support to help the church office stay organized and effective, and (2) they

have already developed a large volunteer base (about 40% of their Sunday attendance serves on a

weekly basis) that needs administrative support.

In order of priority, the reasons that led them to seek to identify one of their own members as a

potential worker are as follows:

It is critical for them to have someone who is passionate about their vision.

There are certain personality traits they are looking for, especially in regard to team

orientation and work ethic, and they feel that is easier to evaluate with someone they

already know.

The leadership considers “chemistry” between the members of the ministry team to

be vital, which is easier to evaluate with a local person.

The skills and ministry mindset they need for the position are available locally.

It is more cost-effective.

Cross has decided to hire the member, rather than to call, using the following process:

1. Public call for resumes

2. Initial interview

3. Written tests (two)

4. Second interview

5. Hire

11

This particular position, Administrative Assistant, will be an on-going, open-ended hire. It will

begin at 15 hours per week, moving up to 40 hours per week by 2007, God-willing. The hourly

wage will be around $10, plus or minus, depending on education / experience.

Training will be extensive and ongoing, including a “break-in” form of training and ongoing

reading of books / resources to reinforce their mission / vision. The individual will also be

required to take outside courses to upgrade skills.

Case Study D

“Doxology Lutheran Church” was a century-old urban congregation in the Midwest served by

two pastors and a secretary. With 800 communicants and a large school, they clearly saw a need

for more manpower. One of Doxology‟s members, “Dan Divine,” was a former Lutheran

elementary school teacher who had graduated from DMLC and also had a Master‟s degree in

education. Dan had contributed to the congregation through his work on the church council and

through other service; he was a known commodity, trusted and respected by the congregation. A

special gift of $20,000 allowed Doxology to call Dan to a half-time family ministry position for a

two year pilot program. That position was made permanent at the end of the two years, and it

was expanded to full-time several years ago, with a compensation package of $45,000 plus

benefits. Dan has now served Doxology for almost 15 years.

When his ministry position was part-time, Dan also worked in a secular job involving direct

sales. The congregation came to realize that there was a need for some clarification, since at

times the line was blurred between ministry and sales calls. Their conclusion was that tent

ministry works best if the secular job stays segregated from sales contacts and solicitation of

members.

Doxology suggests that congregations be intentional on giving the person some very public

activities that allow the individual to be seen in ministry service.5 Their advice: “If a person has

the gifts, training, skills and trust of the whole congregation, please consider using these unique

people for the Lord‟s Church. One aspect of „ramping up‟ in ministry is relieved because the

person already knows the staff and members. On the other hand, some might feel a bit awkward

in having „one of their own,‟ a lay person, serving in called compensated ministry.”

STRATEGIC ADVANTAGES

Moving someone from being a volunteer to being a staff member has some obvious advantages.

There is an element of trust in the leadership of the church and in the flock itself. The person has

already earned the respect of those around him or her. Staff brought in from the outside, while

very capable and well-trained, still need to earn trust and respect over time. In that regard, they

cannot hit the ground running. Often, recruitment is not easy at first for someone from the

outside. For the “insider,” relationships can be “cashed in” quickly because much time has

already been invested in interactions within and in the dynamics of the congregation.

5 This could avoid the problem noted in Case Study B.

12

Whenever someone comes in from the outside, there are no guarantees concerning “fit” in terms

of philosophy of ministry or personality, and that can make the “immovable staff” nervous. How

will the new person “fit in”? In our church body, thankfully, doctrinal unity is a given.

Obviously, that is only part of the picture of compatibility. With an “insider” you know what

you have; this includes spouse and children, where applicable.

In many cases, money is saved when congregation members are asked to serve on the staff. For

one thing, there are no moving costs to pay. Early retirees may not need a full salary and

benefits package. Targeted work can mean targeted pay or benefits. Congregations may know

quality workers who are available at little or no cost. “I‟m not in it for the money,” or, “We

don‟t need the money, at least no health insurance,” are statements used by many lay people

when asked about pay for kingdom work. When you hire or call from the field, such

“negotiations” are not usually possible, for a variety of reasons.

Classically trained WELS called workers, especially pastors and teachers, are generalists. In

many cases it is difficult to discover a unique skill in advance. Niche ministries are important in

many congregations, but our classically trained workers may be overqualified (in educational

terms) to run a niche ministry. For example, a lay person who has been teaching mentally

disabled adults professionally, or in his or her own home, may be better suited to run the “Jesus

Cares” ministry than almost any classically trained called worker available. The same could be

said for a large scale “Good Samaritan” effort, or work done in assisted living facilities. A part-

time worker may be all that is required. A lay person may be suited for two or even three niche

ministries, while the classically trained worker – because of little life experience outside the

WELS system – may be suited for only one, or perhaps none.6

For such types of kingdom work, training could be tight-focused and needs-based. Training

would take less time, cost less, and be available locally. In many situations, much training may

have already been provided by the secular world and by the life experience of the local worker,

at no cost to the synod or local church. The layperson has already experienced hands-on training

in the specific setting in which he or she will be serving, and the church would simply fill in with

spiritual training, which could be done locally by a classically trained pastor, staff minister, or

teacher.

One Green Bay, Wisconsin area Catholic church, which averages about 350 people in three

worship services on a weekend, lost its “own” priest. The response was to raise up local

members to take care of ALL the day-to-day operations of the parish. As reported by the laity,

“There is one woman [full-time paid] who comes in each day. The priest just shows up to

conduct the Mass; we do everything else.”

STRATEGIC DISADVANTAGES

One obvious disadvantage to raising up staff from your midst is parochialism. A long-time

member of the church and community may fit in well. However, they may not have rubbed

6 This idea should not be exaggerated – many called workers, especially those who grew up in a lay household, have

had every bit as much (or more) exposure to the so-called “real world” as many lay members have had.

13

shoulders with those who can bring the group new ideas. Classical training includes getting to

know other people from around the WELS, perhaps from around the country or even the world,

and exposure to a wide range of ideas that have been tried before. At the very least, synod-level

training offers a broader context within which to try new ideas on the local level.

Doctrinal training may not be deep. This would especially be true if the person being considered

did not have the advantage of Lutheran Elementary School or Area Lutheran High School

training. Some church leaders believe that doctrine is best taught and caught over time through a

variety of exposures. Informal work-targeted training does not usually allow for soak time on

deeper doctrinal issues.

Quality control may be an issue. What amount of training did the staff person receive in the

local setting? How complete was the training? How extensive is the written record of training?

In many cases, the training received may not be transferable to another setting. The Hmong men

trained by the Alliance churches in California and the Midwest experienced this challenge; they

picked up training wherever possible at Bible schools from around the country, but the quality of

training was hit-and-miss, and their subsequent record spotty at best.

Once trained, local personnel can be difficult to move or, if need be, to remove. Feuds are easy

to come by when one of the “home-grown heroes” gets “picked on” by the “newer” pastor who

does not have the long-term relationships with and trust of the congregation members that the

person being removed has. Examples of this problem can also occur with church secretaries.

In addition to difficulties with removal, there can be internal jealousy over who was chosen to be

trained and “moved up.” It is difficult to imagine a strong lay leader who has not offended some

in the flock. It is, in fact, impossible to please all the people all the time “on the way up the

church corporate ladder,” as some members might view the increasing level of involvement and

responsibility of others. One clear danger is that long-term dedicated volunteers, especially from

the loyalty generation, could become hurt or confused when a younger, part-time single mother

gets paid for a job that used to be done by them at no cost. An example might be the role of a

volunteer treasurer being wrapped into a part-time paid treasurer position, with a few other duties

tacked on. When budgets exceed $500,000, it can be much more difficult to find a qualified

long-term volunteer treasurer as in days gone by.

IDENTIFYING CANDIDATES

How does a congregation identify appropriate candidates for part-time ministry positions from its

own membership? One would be hard-pressed to find a better starting point than the two

qualifiers that the Jerusalem congregation used in Acts 6, as discussed earlier: spiritual maturity

(“full of the Spirit”) and practical aptitude (“full of … wisdom”). The former relates to a solid

biblical foundation for ministry, and the latter to the specific abilities needed for ministry.

An additional necessary attribute is “trainability.” That starts with an attitude, a willingness to

be trained, a willingness indicated by the inverse of the opinion that “I know it all already – just

get out of the way and let me get going.” It continues with the ability to process new information

14

and apply it, new information that may be acquired through formal instruction, through

observation, or through hands-on experience.

There is a question that will (or at least should) arise in congregations considering expanding

staff with its own members, a question that also is appropriate for member ministry: Do we seek

people for positions, or positions for people? In other words, do we look for pegs to fill our

holes, or for holes to fill with our pegs? Some people have strong feelings one way or the other.

A member of an Episcopal congregation in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, which has added a

number of part-time people to its staff as a “mutual ministry team,” says, “[W]e always looked

first at people, not at tasks that needed to be done.”7 The opposite view is that a church should

begin by looking at its opportunities and challenges, and then seek people who can support

strategies to meet those needs. Our answer to the question, however, is simply “Yes” – a

congregation should begin with a balanced and accurate examination of both pegs and holes, and

give equal weight to both as it considers tapping its own membership for part-time ministry

positions. Using only a peg or only a hole approach could well result in viable candidates or

viable ministry opportunities being overlooked.

We would also suggest two other questions to ask. The first is, “Who has a passion for what?”

If a person has evidenced a strong commitment to some area of ministry, such as youth work or

evangelism, it would make sense to see whether that person and that area would be a good match

for a part-time position. A second question is, “What skill sets have our members developed

professionally or experientially?” What tools do our members already have in their tool boxes?

Many of them have boxes that are full, and some are even carrying two boxes. Can these tools

be put to work for the work of the Lord?

TRAINING OPTIONS

One noted expert on congregational ministry writes:

The church‟s strategic task can only be accomplished through the use of an army of

volunteers serving effectively under the direction of a few professional leaders. And

effective service requires more than willingness; it requires training.

To become a teacher in even the youngest grades, one must study content and methods

for several years after high school. In contrast to this requirement, willing people in

churches and ministry organizations assume responsibility without even knowing what is

expected of them, much less having been trained for the job.

7 Lance R. Barker & B. Edmon Martin, eds., Multiple Paths to Ministry: New Models for Theological Education

(Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 2004), 37.

15

Leaders should be given basic training in the content of Scripture and the process of

ministry. In the progressive organization, however, the trained leader will also

understand the entire ministry mission and see his place in it.8

What Kenneth Gangel writes about volunteer ministry is even more true about a member who is

going to be installed on the staff level. It is our perspective that no one should ever be deployed

in ministry without both adequate initial and also on-going training.

What will that training look like? Especially for focused, part-time positions, we must avoid the

temptation to assume that a cookie-cutter approach will be effective:

The specifics of equipping or training must always be contextually adapted for optimal

effectiveness. No single educational program design is universally applicable. Differences

in worldview, resources, local ministry goals, the educational level of the learners, learning

styles, and a score of other variables when combined prevent a single educational form

from being optimally effective in multiple settings.9

One time-honored approach is experiential learning in the form of on-the-job training that

happens within an apprentice kind of relationship, one that can approach the concept of

mentoring when it happens in a more fully developed form.

The term mentor comes from the Odyssey, Homer‟s great epic of Greek life written eight

centuries before Christ. In this story, Ulysses asked a wise man named Mentor to care for

his son, Telemachus, while Ulysses went off to fight in the Trojan War. After twenty

years, Ulysses returned home and found that Mentor taught his son “not only in book

learning but also in the wiles of the world.” Telemachus grew up to be an enterprising lad

who gallantly helped his father recover his kingdom. It is significant that Mentor was to

work with Telemachus not only in schoolwork, but on how to get along in the world. From

this we can identify two aspects of mentoring: teaching and modeling.10

In some cases, on-the-job training will be sufficient. Suppose a Midwest congregation with a

growing number of seniors is seeking to add a part-time visitation minister to its staff, someone

who will be able to assist the pastor especially in visiting shut-ins; sometimes those visits would

include a devotion, at other times they may simply be friendly visits. An active, spiritually

mature layman who has been a long-time leader in the congregation, recently retired as a social

worker, has agreed to serve. In this case, a month or two of accompanying the pastor on his

8 Kenneth O. Gangel, Team Leadership in Christian Ministry: Using Multiple Gifts to Build a Unified Vision

(Chicago: Moody Press, 1997), 337-338.

9 Edgar J. Elliston and J. Timothy Kauffman, Developing Leaders for Urban Ministries (New York: Peter Lang,

American University Studies Vol. 147, 1993), 3.

10

Lawrence Olson and Daniel Nommenson, “Mentoring New Staff Ministers Assigned to Foreign Fields,” 2000.

16

visitation rounds, preceded by a general orientation and followed by thoughtful discussion and

debriefing as the visits are made, might well be sufficient.11

Another option is for a congregation to use a locally designed program for training. Perhaps a

Sun Belt congregation has an expanding children‟s ministry that seeks to serve a burgeoning

population of young families. One of its members, currently a stay-at-home mom, is a graduate

of Martin Luther College who taught in a Lutheran elementary school for three years before

getting married and relocating. Now that her children are a little older, she is excited about the

prospect of serving 15-20 hours per week as her church‟s Children‟s Ministry Coordinator. Her

background in elementary education gives her a strong foundation, but she has little or no

experience with Sunday School, VBS programs, Christmas or Easter for Kids, summer camps,

after school programming, Pioneers, and the like. The pastor and the president of the

congregation consult with her, and they come to the mutual decision to seek supplemental

training for her under the direction of the pastor. They would especially utilize targeted

resources from the WELS Board for Parish Services, but would also include a planned program

of personal reading and study, as well as attendance at selected workshops and seminars.

A third option is the Congregational Evangelist Program. An evangelist is a called worker who

assists a congregation and its pastor by spearheading outreach in a specific cultural group or

community. The responsibilities of the evangelist may include ethnographic interviewing, survey

and canvass work, evangelism visits, follow-up on prospects, conducting basic Bible studies, and

training, mentoring and coordinating local volunteers.

“Evangelist” is used more or less in the world mission sense of the word. In world fields, these

are individuals who have not completed full pastoral training, but are actively involved in

ministry roles to assist the pastors. Here in the States, that kind of role might better be thought of

as a parish ministry assistant. Outreach is a clear priority of the CEP, but graduates have often

served in other aspects of ministry, depending on local needs. More than 170 students are

currently enrolled in the program, from all areas of the U.S. and also from Canada. With the

exception of a final 10-day Capstone Session, all instruction is carried out on the local level, with

courses taught by the local pastor or by an instructor who is brought in for a weekend session.

Completion of the program allows the church to grant its member a local, congregational, yet

standardized certification that is recognized by the WELS. Completing this training program

would provide a part-time staff member with a broader base for specialized service.

A final option is the Staff Ministry Program. This program provides a synodical certification on

the same level as that of pastors and teachers, and individuals with that certification are eligible

for calls elsewhere. The courses are all college-level, and the program gives a much broader and

deeper foundation for ministry than any of the other training models. It may be appropriate for

only a select few of the part-time staff members in our congregations: those whose service

approaches or exceeds three-quarters time; those whose ministry activities are more varied or

generalist in nature, instead of being tightly focused; and those who simply have a thirst for the

highest level of training possible. Courses are provided through a variety of delivery systems –

11

This approach is often referred to as a praxis model, or as an action-reflection model. The terms are synonymous,

and the strategy is highly effective.

17

online, extension formats at satellite locations, independent and directed studies, summer school

in New Ulm and at other sites – to make it realistic for individuals who are already serving in

ministry to achieve certification without having to relocate to New Ulm.

All four of these options for training are consistent with an increasing movement toward what

has been termed a “missional approach” to theological education. It “places the main emphasis

on theological mission, on hands-on partnership in ministry based on interpreting the tradition

and reflecting on practice with a strong spiritual and communal dimension.”12

Samuel Calian,

the long-term president of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, summarizes some of the essentials

of this approach as follows:

The “missional outlook” tends to be wholly or partly field-based in a global as well as local

setting, and places its emphasis outside the classroom. Banks and others who share this

view want the learning community of theological schools extended beyond the campus

gates so that students, faculty and administrators might experience their ministry in the

context of God‟s classroom – the world. Access to this world-oriented classroom would

occur not after one‟s degree is earned, but during the process of one‟s education. The spirit

behind this missional approach is found in the text of John 3:16: “For God so loved the

world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but

may have eternal life.” The context for theological education is not restricted to the

classroom, but encourages us to be in the world at the same time.13

PRACTICAL CONCERNS

Change can be difficult in any church. Any staff addition, whether internal or external, creates

new challenges and stress for the church family and its current staff. Roles must be adjusted, and

the adjustments may be especially difficult if a “new” internal staff member flinches at making

tough decisions because he has moved from being a “friend of” to a “boss over” church

volunteers. And there is no paycheck to motivate those whom he supervises – if hearts are not

truly motivated by the gospel in such situations, the sinful nature could erupt quickly.

Compensation is another issue. What scale should be used? Are WELS-trained teachers, clergy,

and staff ministers to be treated as financial equals with those not fully trained through the

formal WELS system? Part-time pay can be even more complicated, because there are a wide

variety of variables that enter in. Does this person punch a clock for mostly administrative desk

work? Is the position more akin to pastoral ministry, where there is high trust in terms of hours

and effort put into the calling? Is this a measurable situation, as in a classroom where the

number of students is measurable along with the hours logged for teaching and prep time?

Results in a classroom setting are also somewhat predictable.

12

Robert Banks, Reenvisioning Theological Education: Exploring a Missional Alternative to Current Models

(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 144.

13

Carnegie Samuel Calian, The Ideal Seminary: Pursuing Excellence in Theological Education (Louisville /

London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 54.

18

Why pay this person? “We never had to pay anyone to do that before.” Leaders in today‟s

congregations struggle. Volunteers are free labor, after all, and budgets are tight. However,

volunteers come and go in today‟s world, and good ministry comes and goes right along with

them. People are mobile, schedules are hectic. The passion of some volunteers wanes. Other

volunteers turn out to be consistent, bringing high quality to the task over years; their passion

does not diminish as time passes. You never know if a ministry will survive being staffed and

supervised by volunteers alone.

If paying staff members creates quality and consistency, there is still one big problem: it is

difficult to know which part-time or full-time internal staff should be paid, and at what level. Is

this money being given for work per hour, for the task, or mostly for appreciation? What is the

level of responsibility or skill required? (For example, some organists maintain that they should

be paid more because they have been trained over a long time, at great personal cost and

sacrifice, to provide a specific skill in the all-important church service.) Does this person need

the money? Want the money? Most of these decisions must be made by “feel” rather than cold

hard logic. People don‟t fit in boxes. As observers take note of the decisions to pay some, but

not others, jealously or misunderstanding could be a real issue. These issues, of course, are

much more likely to happen where the environment is “low trust,” and communication with clear

goal setting is not being worked at.

Some larger churches may have as many as twenty part-time paid positions. Who, then, is to be

considered “on staff”? Only the full-timers? Consider the variety of staff: a senior long-time

minister … a second-year pastor … a third grade teacher … a janitor … a staff minister … a

part-time church secretary ... a volunteer who dedicates thirty-plus hours a week. If the

congregation has an appreciation day for the staff, should all be treated exactly the same? What

if someone moves on to another ministry in another city? How do you say “farewell”? How do

you say “hello” to new staff? Who should be invited to the staff Christmas party? Should that

party take place when the teachers have “down time,” or when the pastors do? Teachers love

Saturday nights; pastors love Friday or Sunday nights. And with all the comings and goings, it is

difficult to bring everyone up to speed.

It is a challenge to treat people “as equals” or “fairly.” No one knows how such ideas might

apply in a church family that grows over time. The mafia Don can say, “It‟s not personal, it‟s

business.” Church leaders cannot take that kind of approach without a large down side. But

getting to know one another can be a challenge, and miscommunication is a natural result. Full-

time staff and part-time staff do not have the same responsibility level. Should part-time staff

have the same decision-making authority as full-time staff? Which meetings should they be

invited to? Again, leaders need to “feel” their way to these answers rather than make hard

policies, especially from one congregation to the next. We pray for wisdom, as James reminds

us (James 1:5), and ask God that people keep their eyes on what is best for the Kingdom of God,

not the kingdom of self, personal agendas, and feelings.

In the church, eliminating someone‟s call is often painful and complicated. This is especially the

case if the called worker “is just not working out.” If the worker is long-term and likable, the

odds are that feelings of “let‟s not hurt him” will trump the logic which indicates that a change

19

would be helpful for the work of the kingdom. And if the person is unlikable, things can get

downright ugly.

Those are the same basic problems that confront those who wish to “adjust” (i.e. eliminate)

internal staff, with the additional risk that relatives and close friends may quit the church.

“Uncle Bob was such a nice guy. How could they do this to him?” In many cases, if things do

not go well, a called worker trained in the WELS system moves back to where his or her

extended family lives. However, an internal staff member, such as Uncle Bob, lives right where

he always did, and gets his hair cut at the same place every month, where the same sad story – of

what the pastor and church council did to him – gets told over and over again.

INSIGHTS FROM OUTSIDE

What is happening in other denominations in North America? Is the strategy of developing part-

time ministry positions (or even full-time positions) from within the congregation a viable one in

other church bodies?

It is somewhat difficult to quantify the extent of this approach. In the large majority of cases,

part-time staff members are hired locally, are trained on an ad hoc / as-needed basis, are not

required to have a church-wide endorsement or certification, and are not tracked by any regional

or central office or agency. However, these kinds of home-grown workers are found in dozens

of denominations, including the Evangelical Free Church of America, the Southern Baptist

Convention, the Assemblies of God, the Christian Reformed Church, the African Methodist

Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church in America, the Roman Catholic Church, the

Christian and Missionary Alliance, the Conservative Baptist Association, the Church of God in

Christ, the Episcopal Church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the United Methodist

Church, the Church of the Nazarene, the United Church of Christ … and the list goes on. In fact,

the list of denominations that do not have these kinds of staff people would be far, far shorter. It

would be reasonable to assume that there are many tens of thousands of these workers serving in

Christian congregations in North America.

David Luecke, a Missouri Synod pastor, notes,

Most denominations are finding themselves considering two paths to congregational

ministry. One is the traditional approach of college or seminary training and subsequent

placement anywhere in the country. The other is the evolving approach of bringing

training to leaders already engaged in congregational ministry.14

This is not a recent phenomenon. Lyle Schaller, the astute observer of and prolific author about

the American church scene, has been advocating this approach for part-time staff members for

over a generation now. Already a quarter of a century ago, he discussed the “policy question of

concentrating on full-time persons in developing a multiple staff or on encouraging the

14

David S. Luecke, “Lay Leadership in the LCMS Today,” in Issues in Christian Education, Spring 2004 (Vol. 28,

No. 1), 7.

20

employment of part-time persons.”15

Part of this discussion relates to fiscal pragmatism: “When

measured in terms of cost and productivity, the most expensive staff members are often the

inexperienced full-time ministerial generalists. On the other end of the scale the biggest bargain

on the program staff may be the mature laywoman who is a part-time specialist.”16

But notice

the connection of productivity with cost. Schaller‟s bottom line is not just fiscal, but it is

especially the results in ministry that flow from a staffing approach. Using a cost-benefit

analysis, his considered opinion is that “the church with part-time professional staff members

receives more „bang for the buck,‟ in terms of productivity, from its part-time program staff than

does the church with full-time specialists.”17

Schaller does not view part-time program specialists as an option limited to large churches. As

he discusses the middle-sized church, which he defines as averaging between 100 and 200 in

worship (he also calls it “the awkward-sized church”), he says, “Frequently the awkward-sized

congregation is either understaffed or staffed only for better care of the members than for

outreach,” and his perspective is that “the normal pattern” in some denominations “has been the

understaffing of the awkward-sized church.”18

He includes the Lutheran Church–Missouri

Synod among the church bodies that he lists; it would appear that the WELS would also fit that

pattern.

Schaller suggests that part-time program specialists are a viable approach for middle-sized

congregations to use in shifting from staffing for decline to staffing for growth. His profile of

the kind of individuals who excel in these positions is worth thinking about:

While there is nothing magical about this, some of the best part-time program staff

persons come from that segment of the population who share these characteristics. They

are not professionally trained for that position, they are mature adults, they are mothers,

they do not want or need full-time employment, they love the church, they have a

positive view of the world today, they like people, they are creative, they are hard-

working, they are self-starters who can both motivate themselves and inspire others to

participate, and they are not currently married.19

Incidentally, Schaller sees the trend of utilizing program specialists in ministry, including part-

time staff members, as having significant parallels in other fields. Within medicine, education,

law, and even law enforcement, we have seen the emergence of the paraprofessional.20

Schaller‟s perspective is that what we might call “ministry paraprofessionals” can help

15

Lyle E. Schaller, The Multiple Staff and the Larger Church (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1980), 67.

16

Lyle E. Schaller, Reflections of a Contrarian: Second Thoughts on the Parish Ministry (Nashville: Abingdon

Press, 1989), 158-159.

17

Lyle E. Schaller, The Multiple Staff and the Larger Church (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1980), 69.

18

Lyle E. Schaller, The Middle-Sized Church: Problems and Prescriptions (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), 129.

19

Ibid., 130.

20

Lyle E. Schaller, It’s a Different World! (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987), 200-211.

21

congregations move ahead in ministry in the same way that physician‟s assistants or nurse

practitioners, teaching aides or school resource staff, paralegals, and officer‟s assistants have

contributed to their fields.

Within broader American Lutheranism, there is precedent for a congregation to tap one of its

own members for a staff position. This can happen within the Evangelical Lutheran Church of

America especially in two categories of workers, “lay commissioned associates in ministry”

(AIM) and “synodically authorized ministers.”21

The former would fit under our staff ministry

umbrella, and the latter are graduates of regional “lay schools of theology”22

who serve as

“ministers of Word and sacrament” (i.e. pastors) where seminary graduates are not able to fill

that role. These positions could be either part-time or full-time. Another category,

“Congregationally Recognized Partners in Ministry” (CRPM), allows a graduate of a less

extensive program at a lay school to serve in one‟s own congregation.23

Missouri Synod congregations are also increasingly tapping their own members for staff

positions, and that trend has fostered a growing number of regional training programs.

“Currently, 19 of Synod‟s 35 districts have formal programs to educate for church roles

variously called deacon, ministry specialist, ministry associate, or lay minister.”24

Those roles

involve a wide range of ministry activities; the Executive Director of Alaska Mission for Christ,

a part of the LCMS Northwest District, reports, “During and after our Word and Service training,

our students teach classes, work in church offices, make shut-in and hospital calls, visit the

elderly, work in nursing homes, lead youth ministries, serve as leaders in the congregation, make

evangelism calls, etc.”25

The Lay Ministry Training Program at Concordia University Wisconsin

reflects that diversity of service. Its “Level I” (analogous to the WELS Congregational

Evangelist Program) is designed “[t]o enable men and women to exercise their spiritual gifts as

parish teachers, evangelists, youth workers, worship assistants, and church leaders in their

congregational setting,” while its “Level II” (analogous to the WELS Staff Ministry Program)

“[g]raduates are eligible to receive calls to serve congregations as Lay Ministers. Most often a

Lay Minister serves as an assistant to the pastor in areas including lay leadership development

and education, youth ministry, evangelism, assimilation, visitation, worship, and

administration.”26

21

“Ministry Needs and Resources in the 21st Century: Report and Recommendation,” ELCA Division of Ministry

and ELCA Department for Research and Evaluation, July 1 2000.

22

Other terms used are Lay School of Ministry or Lay School of Mission.

23

AIMs are eligible for a call elsewhere, while CRPMs are not; this same distinction holds in the WELS between

certified staff ministers and graduates of the Congregational Evangelist Program.

24

Luecke, 11.

25

Chris J. Reinke, “Lay Ministry Education: Questions, Objections, Responses,” in Issues in Christian Education,

Spring 2004 (Seward, NE; Vol. 28 No. 1), 15.

26

http://www.cuw.edu/Undergraduate/lay_ministry/programs.html

22

The process through which members are deployed in LCMS congregations often follows what

Luecke identifies as an “emerging pattern”:

The emerging pattern is for an adult first to become engaged in volunteer ministry in a

congregation, which then seeks help with training that individual to be more effective in

that congregation‟s ministries without having to leave it. Official synodically rostered

status is usually not important. Ministry in that specific congregation or situation is the

objective.27

The terminology in the ELCA and LCMS varies, but in general they both make a distinction

between two categories. One category is comprised of workers who hold a church-wide

certification, a part of which requires meeting certain standardized expectations for extensive

training; these workers are “rostered” and are eligible for calls to other congregations. The other

category is comprised of workers who are authorized for service by the local congregation itself,

and whose level of training is determined by that congregation (and usually includes both on-the-

job training and participation in area or regional training opportunities); these workers do not

appear on a church-wide roster (although they are often tracked regionally), and they are not

eligible for calls to other churches. In either case, the positions could be full-time or part-time,

and the compensation could be full, partial, or even non-existent. However, the “rostered”

positions tend toward the full-time, fully compensated end of the spectrum, while the “non-

rostered” tend toward the part-time, partially compensated end of the spectrum.

IS THIS APPROACH REALLY “LUTHERAN”?

There are other Lutherans who are developing part-time ministry positions from within the

congregation, but the fact that other Lutherans are doing anything is not alone a sufficient

imprimatur to qualify something as “Lutheran.” A look back to the time of the Reformers may

be helpful. In the Apology, we read, “The church has the command to appoint ministers28

[preachers and deacons29

]; to this we must subscribe wholeheartedly, for we know that God

approves this ministry and is present in it” (Apology XIII, 12). Where are these ministers, these

preachers and deacons (“staff ministers”), to come from?

There is no definitive answer to that question. The Confessions do say, “But since by divine

authority the grades of bishop and pastor are not diverse, it is manifest that ordination

administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law [if a pastor in his own church

ordains certain suitable persons to the ministry, such ordination is, according to divine law,

undoubtedly effective and right30

]” (Treatise 65).

27

Luecke, 7.

28

Latin: de constituendis ministris

29

German: dass sie soll Prediger und Diakonos bestellen

30

German: wenn ein Pfarherr in seiner Kirche etliche tuechtige Personen zu Kirchenaemtern [note the plural]

ordnet

23

Based on comments by Luther, it would appear that his view would be that these “suitable

persons” could be from within the congregation:

You should put the Christian into two places. First, if he is in a place where there are no

Christians he needs no other call than to be a Christian, called and anointed by God from

within. Here it is his duty to preach and to teach the gospel to erring heathen or

non-Christians, because of the duty of brotherly love, even though no man calls him to do

so. Second, if he is at a place where there are Christians who have the same power and

right as he, he should not draw attention to himself. Instead he should let himself be

called and chosen to preach and to teach in the place of and by command of the others.

(LW 39:310)

There would appear to be no reason to limit these “suitable persons” to the pastoral office.

Again Luther:

The estate I am thinking of is rather one which has the office of preaching and the service

of the word and sacraments, and which imparts the Spirit and salvation, blessings that

cannot be attained by any amount of pomp and pageantry. It includes the work of

pastors, teachers, preachers, lectors, priests (whom men call chaplains), sacristans,

schoolmasters, and whatever other work belongs to those offices and persons. (LW

46:220)

It is accurate to observe that many more non-Lutheran congregations are making use of members

in part-time positions than Lutheran congregations. However, if that would be viewed as

something that would arouse suspicion of that strategy as an Unding for Lutherans, perhaps the

reflections of one of our WELS “Church Fathers,” someone with an impeccable Lutheran

pedigree, are worth considering:

Why do we Lutherans not learn something in this sphere from the Reformed churches

round about us? They understand drawing the laity into the service of the church, also in

the individual congregations, and making them co-workers of the pastor. Remarkable:

No church has set forth the doctrine of the spiritual priesthood of all Christians more

clearly and emphasized it more emphatically than the Lutheran church, and especially the

Lutheran church in America. And no church puts this doctrine less into effect. With us

the laity is consigned to listening and doing nothing in the congregation, and the pastor

wants to do everything alone. The result is that we often succumb under the work, and

many things remain undone. This is to a large extent due to a wrong, monarchical,

monopolistic view of the office, according to which the pastor concentrates all church

offices, even the purely external ones, from preacher to janitor, in his own person. Let us

get rid of this erroneous tradition. Let us recognize that there is no divinely instituted and

prescribed form of the ministry, even for the administration of word and sacrament, that

the Holy Spirit here works freely through free Christians, that the edification of the

church amidst the social development of the world is the real guide for the forms of the

ministry of the church. Let us realize that God gives each congregation the needed gifts,

gives them also among the laity for the ultimate perfection of the church, and just through

us wants to perfect these gifts. Where we do not have people with expertise without our

24

doing, let us therefore for assistance in our office draw in gifted lay people who can also

work in doctrine – better than our present-day Sunday school teachers, taken over from

Reformed sects, who are frequently wholly incompetent.

Summary: While the evangelical office of the ministry is of divine institution, the

various forms of the ministry are not through explicit regulation, but are gifts of God,

immediately and mediately given to the church and therefore to be held in high honor and

to be placed into the service of the church upon careful observance of the direction of the

Spirit in the Word.31

WHAT ABOUT THE HOMETOWN PROPHET SYNDROME?

When residents of Nazareth “took offense” at Jesus‟ teaching, he said, “Only in his hometown

and in his own house is a prophet without honor” (Matthew 13:57). That was a demonstration

of the old secular proverb, “Familiarity breeds contempt.” Because familiarity can indeed breed

contempt, there has been a hesitancy to have a called worker serve “in his hometown.” Thus a

seminary graduate, to our knowledge, has never been assigned to his home congregation as a

pastor, or even to the congregation in which he served as a vicar.

The pastoral role may be different from other offices of ministry, in that other called workers in a

congregation serve under the direction of the pastor, and are accountable to him. “Where the

buck stops” is on the desk of the pastor, and thus the potential for familiarity-bred contempt

would appear to be more significant for pastors.32

There are hundreds of examples of

“hometown teachers” who have been called to serve in the preschool or Lutheran elementary

school of their own congregation, and have done so effectively, and there do not appear to be

factors that would suggest that a “hometown part-time staff member” would have any more

problems serving locally. In the abstract, the perceived benefits of this approach – that the

31

August Pieper, “Are There Legal Regulations in the New Testament?” (“Gibt es im Neuen Testament geseztliche

Verordnungen?”), translated by Professor Carl Lawrenz from the Theologische Quartalschrift, Vol. 13, No. 3, July

1916, 157-182.

32

We are, however, aware of several instances of parishes being served by pastors who are sons of those

congregations, apparently without negative fallout. It may be noteworthy that they were not assigned fresh out of

seminary, but instead came as older and seasoned pastors. And while every North American denomination that

follows the college-plus-seminary paradigm of preparation for pastoral ministry takes the same approach that we do

in not assigning seminary graduates back to their home congregations, a few voices here and there do question that

approach. Here is one voice from “there” (non-WELS): “These people (usually) leave their communities and go to

an educational setting elsewhere. After several years of formation, education, socializing, and identity-reshaping,

the person is credentialed and sent off to a new place to „begin ministry.‟ Curiously, that person is eligible to go

anywhere – except back to the community that first identified his or her gifts for ministry!” Barker and Martin, 38.

And here is one voice from “here” (WELS): “As more congregations offer up their most mature and active leaders

to ministry training programs, we need to re-evaluate the assumption of including that man – upon his graduation –

in the general pool of seminary graduates who will be assigned according to the direction of the Conference of

Presidents. If a local congregation, especially for language or culture reasons, is sending a man for training and is

assisting with the costs of that training, why do we not allow them to have first claim on that man upon his

successful completion of the training program? Would it not be proper to hold all options open and to negotiate in

good faith as graduation draws near?”

25

congregation knows the person and his or her gifts, and that the individual is already acquainted

with the ministry of that congregation and with its community – would seem to clearly outweigh

the possible negatives. And one would assume that any church considering this strategy would

know the candidate well enough to also know whether or not the hometown prophet syndrome

would be likely in that particular concrete situation; this prior vetting should be sufficient to

avoid any potential problems.

WILL THIS APPROACH UNDERCUT THE STAFF MINISTRY PROGRAM?

The above question is not really new. When the Congregational Evangelist Program was begun,

the concern was expressed that the CEP would be perceived as a shorter and easier path to

ministry, and that this perceived short-cut would then undercut the relatively new staff ministry

program. That was one of the reasons that prompted the appointment of the Director of the Staff

Ministry Program to the WELS Congregational Evangelist Program Committee, which is

responsible for the oversight of the program and for liaising with the various areas of ministry.

In the first meeting of the committee, “Lawrence Olson addressed the (mis)perception that this

evangelist program, as a local form of a staff ministry position, could undermine the Staff

Ministry Program – which does not appear too likely, given the different scope, structures, and

purposes of the programs.”33

When the question was raised again several years later, an analysis

of the numbers revealed that both programs had experienced significant growth (see below), and

it was noted that the two programs appeared to have had a positive PR benefit for each other.34

Year Staff Ministry

Program35

Congregational

Evangelist Program

1994 1 –

1996 16 –

1998 20 –

2000 35 48

2001 45 74

2002 54 105

2003 6336

153

33

CEP Minutes, 03/13/00.

34

CEP Minutes, 01/27/02.

35

This column refers to on-campus enrollment at MLC, and does not include off-campus certification students.

36

MLC‟s on-campus enrollment in staff ministry programs had been effectively halved from the 2003 figure, due to

a moratorium on new enrollments that was put in place by the BME on February 1, 2003. That moratorium was

lifted by the BME on April 26, 2004, upon the recommendation of the Staff Ministry Study Committee and at the

urging of the COP, and enrollment is now rebuilding.

26

A similar question was raised more than a decade ago about whether the Staff Ministry Program

might undercut our ability to recruit candidates for pastoral ministry, since the training program

for staff ministry would shave years off of the college-plus-seminary training program for

pastoral ministry. The answer to that question also appears to be “no,” and at this point our

concern – unlike the concern not all that long ago, when we were facing a shortage of pastors37

–

is in being able to place the number of seminary graduates that our system is producing.

As Prof. Pieper said in his magisterial essay, “While the evangelical office of the ministry is of

divine institution, the various forms of the ministry are not through explicit regulation, but are

gifts of God, immediately and mediately given to the church and therefore to be held in high

honor and to be placed into the service of the church upon careful observance of the direction of

the Spirit in the Word.”38

In the oft-repeated saying of our forefathers, “The Gospel creates its

own forms.” As the Gospel, in our day and age, creates forms of ministry that deploy members

in public ministry in their own congregations on a part-time basis, perhaps we can view these

positions in terms of cooperation and opportunity, rather than in terms of competition and threat.

That is the kind of perspective that Sam Calian suggests as he looks at the work his own school

is doing:

Seminary education should call us to wrestle honestly with the question of effective and

ineffective leadership, to dig more deeply into our traditions for examples, and through a

process of dialogue to shape new paradigms of leadership to empower the people of God

into a renewed partnership with God. Clergy and laity need a shared vision of a common

apostolate – that is to say, a common calling and commissioning to go forth together as

God‟s people who are interdependent. We need to progress with sensitivity and

compassion as exemplified by Jesus and no longer be limited to a professional “clerical

paradigm” that has divided us into a church of clergy and a church of laity. We must

recover the Reformation spirit to be one people under God. The apostle Paul, encouraged

by his own tent-making vocation, abandoned the false dichotomy separating us into a

two-tier Christianity – clergy and laity – and by his leadership example testified to our

oneness as the people of God (Galatians 3:28).39

RECOMMENDATIONS

The updated mission statement of the Board for Parish Services reads as follows:

MISSION STATEMENT

Parish Services guides and assists WELS congregations in their gospel ministry.

37

One of the authors of this paper served on the Ad Hoc Committee on Pastoral Vacancies in the WELS that was

appointed by the COP to assess that concern; that committee did its work during the first half of 1999.

38

Op. cit.

39

Calian, 11.

27

OBJECTIVES

Parish Services provides congregations with resources, training and personal assistance to:

Strengthen God's People

“Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory

both now and forever! Amen” (2 Peter 3:18).

So that God's people are continually maturing in their Christian faith, life and witness

Equip God's People

“…to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up

until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become

mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12-13).

So that God's people are continually prepared to live their lives in service to Christ, his

mission, and his people.

Encourage God's People

“Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing” (1

Thessalonians 5:11).

So that God's people are continually supported, nurtured, and assisted in Christian love.40

Consistent with that mission, the BPS has a vital role to play in determining the future of the

emerging strategy of developing ministry positions from within the local congregation. This is a

role that the BPS would have in partnership with other groups that have shared interests,

including the Board for Ministerial Education, the Board for Home Missions, the Board for

World Missions, the Conference of Presidents, the Synodical Council, districts of the synod,

conferences of the districts, and, of course, local congregations.

Because the BPS does not have an exclusive role in this strategy, the recommendations we have

do not deal with action items that the BPS could unilaterally implement. Therefore, we are

requesting that the BPS consider the following suggestions that we are offering and support the

concepts that it agrees with. Because other groups will also be evaluating these proposals, the

recommendations may be further modified based on feedback before decisions are made.41

1. Affirm the validity of laypeople in congregations being raised up and deployed as staff

members in the public ministry of their churches. This approach is biblical, it is

Lutheran, it is supported by historical and contemporary experience – and it works.

2. Slightly modify the Congregational Evangelist Program, and rename it the

Congregational Assistant Program. This would simply be a continuation of an on-going

process of development. The CEP is an out-growth of the former Multiethnic

40

WELS BPS.

41

Ultimately, the BME would have responsibility for the second proposal, and the COP for the third proposal.

28

Preseminary Program, which itself has developed into the Pastoral Studies Institute of

Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary. As congregations became aware of the MPP‟s course

materials, they increasingly began to request them to use in training their own members

for ministry, members who were not from minority groups and who did not intend to

prepare for pastoral ministry. So a selection of the MPP courses was then spun off into

the Curriculum for Congregational Service and Outreach. Eventually the CCSO became

established as the Congregational Evangelist Program, a separate program that allowed a

congregation to certify one of its own members for ministry. The CEP is a program of

the BME, but it is overseen by a committee including representatives of ministerial

education, home missions, world missions, and parish services. Although the program

has an outreach emphasis, it is not limited to evangelism in the narrow sense – one of the

reasons that the title “evangelist” was chosen was because of its usage in and familiarity

from world mission fields, where it refers to individuals who have not completed pastoral

training, but who serve in ministry as assistants. Adding attention to just a few areas, e.g.

people-helping skills and parish visitation, would provide a standardized process to assist

congregations in local training for part-time positions, regardless of the nature of the

service. Perhaps more focused forms of certification, based on specific ministry

functions,42

could be considered.

3. Establish a category of Registered Congregational Assistant. This addition would help

to clarify the confusion about staff ministry that was noted in the introduction. It would

allow the WELS to have the same expedient distinction that the two larger Lutheran

church bodies in America work with, categories of “rostered” and “non-rostered,” each

with its own expectations and requirements. This approach parallels the proposal that a

committee on synodical certification recently proposed to the Conference of Presidents

for early childhood education, and which the COP approved; that committee will be

making the same kind of proposal for staff ministry. Formal recognition of an

individual‟s status would be achieved through registration; certification through the

Congregational Assistant Program would be encouraged, but not required. The “registry”

could perhaps be managed as a part of the BPS database, since the BPS is also now

responsible for tracking staff ministers.

CONCLUSION

The WELS needs a wide variety of training taking place at all times: parents training children,

pastors working with church councils, pastors (especially during the first five years of ministry)

continuing training in areas that the Seminary has limited time for, training of high school age

children, and so on. Formal training for our pastors, staff ministers, teachers, and principals is

improving every year; it is succeeding in terms of providing the “normative Lutheran base.” In

addition, wherever it works – and God will guide the process – it is good to consider targeted,

less formal, less expensive “internal” mentoring or on-the-job, learn-as-you-go strategies.

Jesus tells us to ask for more workers to be out in the harvest fields. Not all workers will come

to us through a formal, full-time, on-campus training program. In fact, each member of our local

congregation has the same baptismal calling as our formally trained and called workers, many of

42

As is offered by the Milwaukee Institute of Christian Studies; http://www.charis.wlc.edu/mics/

29

them have the qualifications to serve in representative ministry as member ministers on a

volunteer basis, and some of them have what it takes to serve as part-time staff members in their

congregations.

Each local church is a unique mix of gifts, history, experience, and community, and therefore not

every church may be an appropriate setting for developing part-time ministry positions from

within the congregation. But let us not be afraid to train God‟s people any way that we can – and

to unleash them with God‟s Word in our world. No one will ever run out of work to do.