How living intentionally and in a specific place is transforming us, a bit about the fragmentation of private land and walls, and what some of this could mean for the church
Hi Matt, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Now you have got me thinking again about sacred space and about budgets. Like you, I wonder what makes space sacred. I suspect it might be because we might encounter God there. But if the universe is a cosmic temple and if the Jerusalem temple was a microcosm of the universe then the whole world is sacred space. In the OT you had to go to Jerusalem to encounter God, now we no longer need to worship on this mountain nor in Jerusalem (John 4:21). So sacred space might be any space we decide to set aside for worship. Some church traditions consecrate their church buildings (and deconsecrate them when they are no longer useful). While we Baptists might not go that far, I do think there is value in setting apart a space for worship, and where encounters with God can be facilitated. And that might be a church building.
I take your point exactly on church budgets, and I agree that churches ought to reconsider their budget priorities probably more often than we do. Twenty-five years ago the congregation of a church I am familiar with was much larger than it is now and a building fund was started as they felt we would outgrow the building. Now that is no longer a priority. There is a modest sum in the fund (and questions about honouring what the money was given for are complex), but I wonder if there are creative things that can be done with that fund along the lines of what you describe like a café or social housing. Here is money given for a new building that will not be needed in the foreseeable future languishing in the bank.
Stipend budgets are complex. Like you, I am committed to theological education and have been involved in that in various capacities for most of my adult life, both part-time and full-time. I have never been a paid pastoral worker, but in the churches I have been involved in I have been committed to using whatever gifts God has given me to contribute to the life of those churches. There are plenty of opportunities to do that where I am currently, and I am grateful for those opportunities. Nor am I the only person who has such opportunities. That said, there is a lot to be said for bi-vocational pastors, although in practical terms once a church reaches a certain critical mass, that may not always be possible.
I have probably said enough. Thanks for the conversation.
Thanks Phil! Always fun to chat with you, especially hearing you talk about the temple and its cosmic sacredness.
And my lingering thought since this comment-chat started on sacred space and temple is we are the temple of the Holy Spirit as individuals (1 Cor 6:19) and collectively as the church (2 Cor 6:11-18, 2 Pet 2:4-5) because of the one to whom we belong. So, I'd think sacred space is more about the One who inhabits the people who inhabit a space, than it is about the building or locale. To your point, the whole world is sacred space as it belongs to God. In that case, we constantly dwell in sacred space as we house the Holy Spirit and live out our priesthood and task of bringing all things together in unity under the Lordship of Jesus (Eph 1:10). I think space (e.g., a building) can be significant, perhaps especially if its purpose is God-oriented, but it is the Spirit who is sacred and makes space sacred, and the Spirit is boundless.
Thanks, Matt for a thought-provoking blog. I am interested in your comments on church buildings and professional ministers, and I understand some of your points, but I think we need to be careful not to go too far in one direction.
I understand Baptist churches in NZ have properties worth $4 billion and a lot could be done if some of those buildings were sold. On the other hand, sacred space is important. I will give four examples.
In 1996 I went to Syria and visited Maaloula, a Christian town built into the side of a hill about 50km from Damascus, where the people still speak Aramaic. It contains a Syrian Orthodox monastery that was invaded and taken over by Jihadists in 2013 and now returned to the nuns. Part of the monastery complex is what is believed to be the oldest church in the world in continuous use since the second century. A place set aside for Christian worship for maybe 1900 years. That is truly a sacred space and we would be poorer without it.
I have been to Cyprus many times and have often visited the 9th-century Church of Saint Lazarus. After Jesus raised him from the dead Lazarus is said to have fled to Cyprus where he became the first bishop (so the story goes). You can go downstairs to the Crypt where Lazarus is said to have been buried. There is said to have been a church on that site long before St Lazarus was built. This too is a sacred space where people have come to pray for maybe almost 2000 years and we would be poorer without it.
About 20 years ago on one of my trips to Cyprus, I had a 10-hour layover in Frankfurt. There is a train line through Frankfurt Airport, and I took a train to Mainz to fill in some of the day. I took in the Gutenberg Museum and then wandered into the Mainz Cathedral. There I sat in a prayer chapel and mingled my prayers with those of countless people who had prayed in that place for 1,000 years. It was a sacred moment for me. (And then I got lost trying to find my way back to the railway station.)
And to bring it up to date, around 50 years ago I took my pre-school daughter to Auckland’s Holy Trinity Cathedral. She looked up at the high vaulted ceilings, leaned over to me, and said, “Daddy these people must love God very much.”
Of course, there are things we could do for the poor with some of what we have with church buildings, but I think Christians have been right to set aside spaces for believers to gather for worship over the centuries. And we would be much poorer if some of these spaces no longer existed.
As for professional ministers, I grew up in a group that now calls itself the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church They don’t believe in theological education or professional ministers and have now become (in my opinion) a heretical cult. As a graduate of Regent College and as someone who for twenty years while working as an accountant, ran a part-time school of theology for professional people in the secular workplace, of course, I agree with you when you ask, “What could churches do differently with our resources if we were able to see a Spirit-filled body of believers equipped for ministry rather than just a select few, or one? But if I read Ephesians 4:11–13 right, someone needs to do the equipping. And it seems to me that one way to do that is to train someone (in a theological college), set them aside for that purpose and pay them a stipend. There is a balance to be sure, but I don’t think there is wisdom in doing away with sacred spaces and “sacred” (in the sense of set apart) people to equip the people for the work of the ministry.
Thanks, Matt for a thought-provoking blog. I am interested in your comments on church buildings and professional ministers, and I understand some of your points, but I think we need to be careful not to go too far in one direction.
I understand Baptist churches in NZ have properties worth $4 billion and a lot could be done if some of those buildings were sold. On the other hand, sacred space is important. I will give four examples.
In 1996 I went to Syria and visited Maaloula, a Christian town built into the side of a hill about 50km from Damascus, where the people still speak Aramaic. It contains a Syrian Orthodox monastery that was invaded and taken over by Jihadists in 2013 and now returned to the nuns. Part of the monastery complex is what is believed to be the oldest church in the world in continuous use since the second century. A place set aside for Christian worship for maybe 1900 years. That is truly a sacred space and we would be poorer without it.
I have been to Cyprus many times and have often visited the 9th-century Church of Saint Lazarus. After Jesus raised him from the dead Lazarus is said to have fled to Cyprus where he became the first bishop (so the story goes). You can go downstairs to the Crypt where Lazarus is said to have been buried. There is said to have been a church on that site long before St Lazarus was built. This too is a sacred space where people have come to pray for maybe almost 2000 years and we would be poorer without it.
About 20 years ago on one of my trips to Cyprus, I had a 10-hour layover in Frankfurt. There is a train line through Frankfurt Airport, and I took a train to Mainz to fill in some of the day. I took in the Gutenberg Museum and then wandered into the Mainz Cathedral. There I sat in a prayer chapel and mingled my prayers with those of countless people who had prayed in that place for 1,000 years. It was a sacred moment for me. (And then I got lost trying to find my way back to the railway station.)
And to bring it up to date, around 50 years ago I took my pre-school daughter to Auckland’s Holy Trinity Cathedral. She looked up at the high vaulted ceilings, leaned over to me, and said, “Daddy these people must love God very much.”
Of course, there are things we could do for the poor with some of what we have with church buildings, but I think Christians have been right to set aside spaces for believers to gather for worship over the centuries. And we would be much poorer if some of these spaces no longer existed.
As for professional ministers, I grew up in a group that now calls itself the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church They don’t believe in theological education or professional ministers and have now become (in my opinion) a heretical cult. As a graduate of Regent College and as someone who for twenty years while working as an accountant, ran a part-time school of theology for professional people in the secular workplace, of course, I agree with you when you ask, “What could churches do differently with our resources if we were able to see a Spirit-filled body of believers equipped for ministry rather than just a select few, or one? But if I read Ephesians 4:11–13 right, someone needs to do the equipping. And it seems to me that one way to do that is to train someone (in a theological college), set them aside for that purpose and pay them a stipend. There is a balance to be sure, but I don’t think there is wisdom in doing away with sacred spaces and “sacred” (in the sense of set apart) people to equip the people for the work of the ministry.
Hi Phil! Thanks so much for reading and engaging this post with your thoughts. I love everything about this comment, especially that I get to think on the points you raise as a faithful and admirable-by-a-life-lived-well sort of character. I truly appreciate the time you took and the intentionality that is evident in your comments and examples. Also, I'm grateful you pushed back, in particular, about sacred space in this way, as it's helpful to clarify a few things.
First, sacred space is important, and your comment is giving me some inspiration to write about some of my thoughts on that topic--I had an experience in Rome where I went to St. Peter's Bascillica and contrasting that with a visit to one of the early Christian catacombs outside of town, both "sacred" spaces in their own way, but for profoundly different reasons. Growing up the flavor of Baptist I have, perhaps it's easy for us to miss that space can be sacred. My main emphasis in this post is that where we spend our money matters and reflects what we value implicitly, and I think it is worth every Christian faith community asking the question (publicly and with corporate discernment), "do we need to spend money the way we do?" If a congregation hears from God that three-quarters of the collected tithes and offerings of the saints should go to paying staff and securing property for ministry, then I will defer to the Spirit on that decision. I wonder, however, how many churches discern that trajectory or simply assume it as a given (even yes votes in our Baptist spaces are not always results of corporate discernment). Of course, good, God-honoring work happens in those spaces with those people. I am not advocating doing away with all church buildings and paid ministers, but I think there is a possible option between what I see as the over-emphasis of paid pastors/leaders in costly buildings and no buildings or paid staff at all, ever, and for all time. We've spent a lot of Christian history (since Constantine especially) on one side of the spectrum, and I think it is always worth asking the question, "Is this still (or was it ever) the way it's meant to be? Would we consider change to our structures and processes, and are we asking and leaving room for the Spirit to move us anywhere, even if it's a different direction on this topic?"
Second, I believe there is a difference between the sacred spaces you describe and some of the edifices and structures that get built by churches across the modern, Western world today. (And, I am truly wondering aloud here, what makes those sorts of places sacred? Is it the history of what has happened over time there, the majesty of art and architecture, the intent of the building, the ability to find quiet, etc.? I have some thoughts I want to put down in a future post...). I grew up in a church that was booming in the 90s and early 2000s. They had a 1,500 seat worship center they would fill three times a Sunday and led a years-long building project for a 4,000 seat sanctuary as a result of that growth. They even had blueprints for buildings that could seat 10,000+, assuming they continued to grow. That 3,000 seat auditorium never filled, or didn't for long, and the church has undergone a significant shift in what they do (and who they are) in that space since. The building was only meant to serve one purpose, which was attracting people to hear a preacher--a noble enough ambition, for sure. But when people stop attending, and money doesn't flow the same way, I wonder what a church in that vein of thinking then does. This is anecdotal, but I observe similar tendencies and aspirations everywhere I have lived, with some occasional and refreshing exceptions. There are churches (many in Aotearoa) that have had discernment processes about their buildings that serve the neighborhoods in which they are situated in diverse ways that go beyond simply Sunday attendance. I've seen some that have working cafes, op-shops, communal and affordable housing for young adults and families in need, rented/shared space throughout the week, and many more creative and engaging things. Maybe those things aren't right as a template for every church, but they show a unique effort to engage the place in which they are situated in a way that goes beyond service of budgetary bottom-lines and narrow approaches to what church can be through its edifices and assets.
Further, you're right that certain gifts are given to members of the body to equip the saints for ministry. One way to train them to do the equipping is through theological colleges, as you suggest. Paying them a stipend is a viable option, one which has biblical precedent (1 Cor 9:9-11 and 13-14, 1 Tim 5:17-18). I think it is worth pointing out that Paul himself made it a habit to not require or expect this of communities he served (1 Cor 9:12 and 15-23, 2 Thess 3:7-10). I wonder if we should ask questions about stipends, what they entail, how much they should be, etc.? The common model today often ends up resulting in a single paid pastor (or pastoral staff) who ends up doing the vast majority of ministry. There is regular burn-out, demanding and unreasonable expectations, and often a lack of actual equipping of the saints. I've written about this elsewhere and am consistently thinking on these things and genuinely open to a variety of approaches. I'm not willing to die on the hill that pastors should NOT be paid, but I am willing to die on the hill that the saints MUST be equipped and dignified to share in the joint priesthood that Christ himself died for us to embody (there are fundamental "hills" that precede this ideal, but dignity of the saints is a necessary result of them). And I would contend that our current models regularly leave something to be desired when it comes to corporate equipping of the saints. Could fuller maturation of the body come from paid ministers and privately owned buildings--perhaps better-trained leaders or better-intended buildings? Maybe. But, I don't see that as a normal pursuit or result, so these questions are trying to explore what could change to facilitate that shared ministry better.
Third, I have worked in Christian higher-education for most of my adult life. My wife is a theologian, and I have a degree in Bible exposition. I believe in and am a massive fan of theological and biblical training, and would wish that more of the church pursue it. In fact, I would love to see all followers of Christ training to learn theology in some way. Maybe that is too idealistic, but I can't think of a single reason why that would be a detriment to the body. My critique is not so much THAT we pay theologians and pastors but WHY (and how much, especially when it comes to percentage/allocation of church budgets) we do and WHAT that signifies (sorry for the CAPS--not meaning to shout, but I can't italicize for emphasis in comments). Also, I would reiterate the point that ministry should be shared. So, I would regularly question a church that does not currently and has no plan to deviate from singular leadership models that do not result in a regular equipping of the saints and a manifest sharing of corporate priesthood.
I've thoroughly rambled more than necessary here, but I do love the resultant thinking your points raise. Always keen as to talk more, and I genuinely appreciate your intentionality and transparency in this space. More of this from folks like you, please!
Hi Matt, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Now you have got me thinking again about sacred space and about budgets. Like you, I wonder what makes space sacred. I suspect it might be because we might encounter God there. But if the universe is a cosmic temple and if the Jerusalem temple was a microcosm of the universe then the whole world is sacred space. In the OT you had to go to Jerusalem to encounter God, now we no longer need to worship on this mountain nor in Jerusalem (John 4:21). So sacred space might be any space we decide to set aside for worship. Some church traditions consecrate their church buildings (and deconsecrate them when they are no longer useful). While we Baptists might not go that far, I do think there is value in setting apart a space for worship, and where encounters with God can be facilitated. And that might be a church building.
I take your point exactly on church budgets, and I agree that churches ought to reconsider their budget priorities probably more often than we do. Twenty-five years ago the congregation of a church I am familiar with was much larger than it is now and a building fund was started as they felt we would outgrow the building. Now that is no longer a priority. There is a modest sum in the fund (and questions about honouring what the money was given for are complex), but I wonder if there are creative things that can be done with that fund along the lines of what you describe like a café or social housing. Here is money given for a new building that will not be needed in the foreseeable future languishing in the bank.
Stipend budgets are complex. Like you, I am committed to theological education and have been involved in that in various capacities for most of my adult life, both part-time and full-time. I have never been a paid pastoral worker, but in the churches I have been involved in I have been committed to using whatever gifts God has given me to contribute to the life of those churches. There are plenty of opportunities to do that where I am currently, and I am grateful for those opportunities. Nor am I the only person who has such opportunities. That said, there is a lot to be said for bi-vocational pastors, although in practical terms once a church reaches a certain critical mass, that may not always be possible.
I have probably said enough. Thanks for the conversation.
Thanks Phil! Always fun to chat with you, especially hearing you talk about the temple and its cosmic sacredness.
And my lingering thought since this comment-chat started on sacred space and temple is we are the temple of the Holy Spirit as individuals (1 Cor 6:19) and collectively as the church (2 Cor 6:11-18, 2 Pet 2:4-5) because of the one to whom we belong. So, I'd think sacred space is more about the One who inhabits the people who inhabit a space, than it is about the building or locale. To your point, the whole world is sacred space as it belongs to God. In that case, we constantly dwell in sacred space as we house the Holy Spirit and live out our priesthood and task of bringing all things together in unity under the Lordship of Jesus (Eph 1:10). I think space (e.g., a building) can be significant, perhaps especially if its purpose is God-oriented, but it is the Spirit who is sacred and makes space sacred, and the Spirit is boundless.
Thanks, Matt for a thought-provoking blog. I am interested in your comments on church buildings and professional ministers, and I understand some of your points, but I think we need to be careful not to go too far in one direction.
I understand Baptist churches in NZ have properties worth $4 billion and a lot could be done if some of those buildings were sold. On the other hand, sacred space is important. I will give four examples.
In 1996 I went to Syria and visited Maaloula, a Christian town built into the side of a hill about 50km from Damascus, where the people still speak Aramaic. It contains a Syrian Orthodox monastery that was invaded and taken over by Jihadists in 2013 and now returned to the nuns. Part of the monastery complex is what is believed to be the oldest church in the world in continuous use since the second century. A place set aside for Christian worship for maybe 1900 years. That is truly a sacred space and we would be poorer without it.
I have been to Cyprus many times and have often visited the 9th-century Church of Saint Lazarus. After Jesus raised him from the dead Lazarus is said to have fled to Cyprus where he became the first bishop (so the story goes). You can go downstairs to the Crypt where Lazarus is said to have been buried. There is said to have been a church on that site long before St Lazarus was built. This too is a sacred space where people have come to pray for maybe almost 2000 years and we would be poorer without it.
About 20 years ago on one of my trips to Cyprus, I had a 10-hour layover in Frankfurt. There is a train line through Frankfurt Airport, and I took a train to Mainz to fill in some of the day. I took in the Gutenberg Museum and then wandered into the Mainz Cathedral. There I sat in a prayer chapel and mingled my prayers with those of countless people who had prayed in that place for 1,000 years. It was a sacred moment for me. (And then I got lost trying to find my way back to the railway station.)
And to bring it up to date, around 50 years ago I took my pre-school daughter to Auckland’s Holy Trinity Cathedral. She looked up at the high vaulted ceilings, leaned over to me, and said, “Daddy these people must love God very much.”
Of course, there are things we could do for the poor with some of what we have with church buildings, but I think Christians have been right to set aside spaces for believers to gather for worship over the centuries. And we would be much poorer if some of these spaces no longer existed.
As for professional ministers, I grew up in a group that now calls itself the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church They don’t believe in theological education or professional ministers and have now become (in my opinion) a heretical cult. As a graduate of Regent College and as someone who for twenty years while working as an accountant, ran a part-time school of theology for professional people in the secular workplace, of course, I agree with you when you ask, “What could churches do differently with our resources if we were able to see a Spirit-filled body of believers equipped for ministry rather than just a select few, or one? But if I read Ephesians 4:11–13 right, someone needs to do the equipping. And it seems to me that one way to do that is to train someone (in a theological college), set them aside for that purpose and pay them a stipend. There is a balance to be sure, but I don’t think there is wisdom in doing away with sacred spaces and “sacred” (in the sense of set apart) people to equip the people for the work of the ministry.
Thanks, Matt for a thought-provoking blog. I am interested in your comments on church buildings and professional ministers, and I understand some of your points, but I think we need to be careful not to go too far in one direction.
I understand Baptist churches in NZ have properties worth $4 billion and a lot could be done if some of those buildings were sold. On the other hand, sacred space is important. I will give four examples.
In 1996 I went to Syria and visited Maaloula, a Christian town built into the side of a hill about 50km from Damascus, where the people still speak Aramaic. It contains a Syrian Orthodox monastery that was invaded and taken over by Jihadists in 2013 and now returned to the nuns. Part of the monastery complex is what is believed to be the oldest church in the world in continuous use since the second century. A place set aside for Christian worship for maybe 1900 years. That is truly a sacred space and we would be poorer without it.
I have been to Cyprus many times and have often visited the 9th-century Church of Saint Lazarus. After Jesus raised him from the dead Lazarus is said to have fled to Cyprus where he became the first bishop (so the story goes). You can go downstairs to the Crypt where Lazarus is said to have been buried. There is said to have been a church on that site long before St Lazarus was built. This too is a sacred space where people have come to pray for maybe almost 2000 years and we would be poorer without it.
About 20 years ago on one of my trips to Cyprus, I had a 10-hour layover in Frankfurt. There is a train line through Frankfurt Airport, and I took a train to Mainz to fill in some of the day. I took in the Gutenberg Museum and then wandered into the Mainz Cathedral. There I sat in a prayer chapel and mingled my prayers with those of countless people who had prayed in that place for 1,000 years. It was a sacred moment for me. (And then I got lost trying to find my way back to the railway station.)
And to bring it up to date, around 50 years ago I took my pre-school daughter to Auckland’s Holy Trinity Cathedral. She looked up at the high vaulted ceilings, leaned over to me, and said, “Daddy these people must love God very much.”
Of course, there are things we could do for the poor with some of what we have with church buildings, but I think Christians have been right to set aside spaces for believers to gather for worship over the centuries. And we would be much poorer if some of these spaces no longer existed.
As for professional ministers, I grew up in a group that now calls itself the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church They don’t believe in theological education or professional ministers and have now become (in my opinion) a heretical cult. As a graduate of Regent College and as someone who for twenty years while working as an accountant, ran a part-time school of theology for professional people in the secular workplace, of course, I agree with you when you ask, “What could churches do differently with our resources if we were able to see a Spirit-filled body of believers equipped for ministry rather than just a select few, or one? But if I read Ephesians 4:11–13 right, someone needs to do the equipping. And it seems to me that one way to do that is to train someone (in a theological college), set them aside for that purpose and pay them a stipend. There is a balance to be sure, but I don’t think there is wisdom in doing away with sacred spaces and “sacred” (in the sense of set apart) people to equip the people for the work of the ministry.
Hi Phil! Thanks so much for reading and engaging this post with your thoughts. I love everything about this comment, especially that I get to think on the points you raise as a faithful and admirable-by-a-life-lived-well sort of character. I truly appreciate the time you took and the intentionality that is evident in your comments and examples. Also, I'm grateful you pushed back, in particular, about sacred space in this way, as it's helpful to clarify a few things.
First, sacred space is important, and your comment is giving me some inspiration to write about some of my thoughts on that topic--I had an experience in Rome where I went to St. Peter's Bascillica and contrasting that with a visit to one of the early Christian catacombs outside of town, both "sacred" spaces in their own way, but for profoundly different reasons. Growing up the flavor of Baptist I have, perhaps it's easy for us to miss that space can be sacred. My main emphasis in this post is that where we spend our money matters and reflects what we value implicitly, and I think it is worth every Christian faith community asking the question (publicly and with corporate discernment), "do we need to spend money the way we do?" If a congregation hears from God that three-quarters of the collected tithes and offerings of the saints should go to paying staff and securing property for ministry, then I will defer to the Spirit on that decision. I wonder, however, how many churches discern that trajectory or simply assume it as a given (even yes votes in our Baptist spaces are not always results of corporate discernment). Of course, good, God-honoring work happens in those spaces with those people. I am not advocating doing away with all church buildings and paid ministers, but I think there is a possible option between what I see as the over-emphasis of paid pastors/leaders in costly buildings and no buildings or paid staff at all, ever, and for all time. We've spent a lot of Christian history (since Constantine especially) on one side of the spectrum, and I think it is always worth asking the question, "Is this still (or was it ever) the way it's meant to be? Would we consider change to our structures and processes, and are we asking and leaving room for the Spirit to move us anywhere, even if it's a different direction on this topic?"
Second, I believe there is a difference between the sacred spaces you describe and some of the edifices and structures that get built by churches across the modern, Western world today. (And, I am truly wondering aloud here, what makes those sorts of places sacred? Is it the history of what has happened over time there, the majesty of art and architecture, the intent of the building, the ability to find quiet, etc.? I have some thoughts I want to put down in a future post...). I grew up in a church that was booming in the 90s and early 2000s. They had a 1,500 seat worship center they would fill three times a Sunday and led a years-long building project for a 4,000 seat sanctuary as a result of that growth. They even had blueprints for buildings that could seat 10,000+, assuming they continued to grow. That 3,000 seat auditorium never filled, or didn't for long, and the church has undergone a significant shift in what they do (and who they are) in that space since. The building was only meant to serve one purpose, which was attracting people to hear a preacher--a noble enough ambition, for sure. But when people stop attending, and money doesn't flow the same way, I wonder what a church in that vein of thinking then does. This is anecdotal, but I observe similar tendencies and aspirations everywhere I have lived, with some occasional and refreshing exceptions. There are churches (many in Aotearoa) that have had discernment processes about their buildings that serve the neighborhoods in which they are situated in diverse ways that go beyond simply Sunday attendance. I've seen some that have working cafes, op-shops, communal and affordable housing for young adults and families in need, rented/shared space throughout the week, and many more creative and engaging things. Maybe those things aren't right as a template for every church, but they show a unique effort to engage the place in which they are situated in a way that goes beyond service of budgetary bottom-lines and narrow approaches to what church can be through its edifices and assets.
Further, you're right that certain gifts are given to members of the body to equip the saints for ministry. One way to train them to do the equipping is through theological colleges, as you suggest. Paying them a stipend is a viable option, one which has biblical precedent (1 Cor 9:9-11 and 13-14, 1 Tim 5:17-18). I think it is worth pointing out that Paul himself made it a habit to not require or expect this of communities he served (1 Cor 9:12 and 15-23, 2 Thess 3:7-10). I wonder if we should ask questions about stipends, what they entail, how much they should be, etc.? The common model today often ends up resulting in a single paid pastor (or pastoral staff) who ends up doing the vast majority of ministry. There is regular burn-out, demanding and unreasonable expectations, and often a lack of actual equipping of the saints. I've written about this elsewhere and am consistently thinking on these things and genuinely open to a variety of approaches. I'm not willing to die on the hill that pastors should NOT be paid, but I am willing to die on the hill that the saints MUST be equipped and dignified to share in the joint priesthood that Christ himself died for us to embody (there are fundamental "hills" that precede this ideal, but dignity of the saints is a necessary result of them). And I would contend that our current models regularly leave something to be desired when it comes to corporate equipping of the saints. Could fuller maturation of the body come from paid ministers and privately owned buildings--perhaps better-trained leaders or better-intended buildings? Maybe. But, I don't see that as a normal pursuit or result, so these questions are trying to explore what could change to facilitate that shared ministry better.
Third, I have worked in Christian higher-education for most of my adult life. My wife is a theologian, and I have a degree in Bible exposition. I believe in and am a massive fan of theological and biblical training, and would wish that more of the church pursue it. In fact, I would love to see all followers of Christ training to learn theology in some way. Maybe that is too idealistic, but I can't think of a single reason why that would be a detriment to the body. My critique is not so much THAT we pay theologians and pastors but WHY (and how much, especially when it comes to percentage/allocation of church budgets) we do and WHAT that signifies (sorry for the CAPS--not meaning to shout, but I can't italicize for emphasis in comments). Also, I would reiterate the point that ministry should be shared. So, I would regularly question a church that does not currently and has no plan to deviate from singular leadership models that do not result in a regular equipping of the saints and a manifest sharing of corporate priesthood.
I've thoroughly rambled more than necessary here, but I do love the resultant thinking your points raise. Always keen as to talk more, and I genuinely appreciate your intentionality and transparency in this space. More of this from folks like you, please!
Excellent Matthew as always!
Thanks!
This is so wise and insightful, Matt, thank you! I really enjoyed reading it.
Thanks heaps Jenny! That’s very encouraging!
Such great insight Matt. Thanks. Committing to place and people means dying to self, bever easy, but process brings new life in so many different ways
Thanks Dave! I’ve definitely appreciated your support and kōrero along the way and all the work you do in this space.