- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Throughout my life in the Church, I’ve felt I should do everything possible to leave my Bishop and leaders alone. Perhaps it’s my empathy working, but with full-time jobs, families and how hard it is to balance it all, I’ve felt that I don’t want to add to the burden of my priesthood leaders. Also, when I was younger, and did meet with my Bishop about personal matters, I found they were generally not effective — unless it was to help me navigate through Church policy, such as when I got my mission money together, wanted to go to the temple with my wife, etcetera. They did well at that, but as far as personal advice and help went…not so much.
So, is a paid ministry all that bad? With the time it affords these people to devote to their membership and the affairs of their “Kingdom”, as well as the training they receive in counseling as well as religious training? I used to ask myself this question quite a bit at one time.
What are your thoughts? Is it fair to label paid ministries as “priestcraft”, and to tout lay ministries as the best way to go, when the lay ministers have so little time to devote to their membership?
I’ve never been sure how we can claim to not have a paid ministry. Our local leaders are not paid, but our upper level leaders are. Call it a stipend, living expense re-imbursement, whatever you want, the fact remains they do not hold other jobs and the church provides their monetary needs. Stipend or salary, seems the same to me. If it’s OK on the GA level I don’t see how it could be wrong on the local level, and vice versa…if its wrong on the local level it must be wrong on the upper levels. Good point — even missionaries who serve from their home wards often have their living expenses paid…so, I think it can be hard to claim we have an unpaid ministry in certain pockets of our Kingdom…. In both of your examples, do they pay tithing on the payments? Just asking.
Mike from Milton.
My Ward supported me the last few months of my mission….and I paid no tithing on it. clahcrah wrote:Our local leaders are not paid, but our upper level leaders are. Call it a stipend, living expense re-imbursement, whatever you want, the fact remains they do not hold other jobs and the church provides their monetary needs. Stipend or salary, seems the same to me.
I read a book a long long time ago that quoted an old time GA calling the stipend a “glorified welfare program.” So at least at one point the stipend was so low as to be worth complaining about.
I recognize that there are some advantages for paid clergy but there are down sides as well. Do we base their pay on how well they are performing? How do we gauge performance? Revenues? I think we would just be trading the devil we know for the unknown.
As I normally do, here is a link to another thread that deals with this topic: “Time for a Professional Clergy?”( http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2283&hilit=clergy I understand the issues of having a lay local clergy (and they are real and important), but I am not a fan of a paid ministry. I would like to see more in the way of paid services through fast offerings for professional counseling for members, but I don’t want a paid ministry at the local level.
I agree with Ray’s solution – much more middle ground. The problem with paid clergy, call it priestcraft (which feels like just some dumb made-up word) or call it whatever, but there is conflict of interest. I think the word of God should be free for those who seek it, not a commodity to be bought and sold. Then again, you get what you pay for . . . (?) I read the last discussion we had (that Ray posted) and realized I had suggested making sure the Bishop had a network of professionals to which he could refer the hard cases back then, when we discussed it last. I guess I better stick with that since I said it last March! 😆 But I don’t think this is enough. The Bishop simply has too much to do.
If the common will is that we stick with the BoM admonitions against priestcraft, I would like to see expanded powers for counselors who take on those things that currently can only be handled by the Bishop. This would have to be handled by revisiting the duties of a Bishop and would mean further alterations to the CHI.
I would recommend deletion of tithing settlement unless a Ward falls below some standard (I’d rather they did away with it entirely, but that would be too drastic for the Church; I’m sure Cadence would agree wholeheartedly). Tithing settlement wears out our Bishops. I know that because I have had to collect their personal home teaching numbers during those months…and many of us find it annoying when we already have temple recommend interviews where we answer that question. Tax receipts can be mailed or distributed without a meeting and corrections made as needed.
Declarations as full, partial or exempt tithe-payers can be made in temple recommend interviews with the Bishop or his counselors -and it ends there. No Stake meeting.
I would like to see welfare cases referred to a Ward Welfare Director who handles the messy and last-minute calls for help, as well as surprise visits from transients. He also has budget authority over welfare funds and full accountability. He reports to some Stake member with authority who oversees the program. Perhaps to a Stake Welfare Director who reports to the SP regularly. The Ward Welfare Director has a dotted line to the Bishop, and sits on the Welfare Committee (if it still exists) or Ward Council to help mobilize member support when needed for families in need.
And I would continue to discourage this “run to the magic Bishop” mentality that permeates our culture.
A lay clergy is a newer concept int the church. In the early days the bishop was a full time job and was paid out of the storehouse. It was latter changed as it is today. Why pay for something you can get for free. Personally I would rather have a full time Bishop that was paid but since that is not going to happen perhaps as Ray says more resources available when the Bishop faces issues he is just not equipped to handle. I think the issue is in the church there is the feeling that because of his calling the Bishop is entitled to some kind of divine perception that qualifies him to be counselor and judge. Problem is I do not think that is the case in most instances and the Bishop is making judgments from his own life experience. That may be OK, but sometimes it can be destructive. A trained professional would be better equipped to handle problem cases.
Quote:The Bishop simply has too much to do.
/Beginning of rant
A lot of that is because he usually is doing far more than he’s supposed to be doing. That’s always his “fault” (either because he is too confident / arrogant / ignorant and insists on doing more than he is supposed to do or because he is too sensitive / timid / passive and doesn’t delegate as much as he should) – but a lot of it falls on lax stake leadership and oversight, especially in the area of real-life, practical training and modeling.
/End of rant
Old-Timer wrote:As I normally do, here is a link to another thread that deals with this topic:
“Time for a Professional Clergy?”( http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2283&hilit=clergy I understand the issues of having a lay local clergy (and they are real and important), but I am not a fan of a paid ministry. I would like to see more in the way of paid services through fast offerings for professional counseling for members, but I don’t want a paid ministry at the local level.
Two things.
1. Why are you not in favor of a paid clergy?
2. Is this discussion thread better posed as “how can we make a dramatic improvement in our leader’s ability to contribute to the positive experience of our members?”
As I reflect on this, I see that as the ultimate goal of people considering a paid ministry — the fact that our leaders lack the time and expertise to help with most things, except the most critical Church administrative matters. Also of concern is the burn-out we cause such Bishops with the many horses they have to straddle. We seem to think that making them full-time, and compensating them accordingly would help.
Certainly that is the logic at high levels of the Church…but if no one agrees that local leaders should be paid, how do we manage around the deficits in their expertise, and time available to do thier jobs properly? I have tons of instances where they just drop the ball because they don’t have time to do everything expected of them even half-well.
You have mentioned an expanded network of professionals — would these be paid Church professionals then? And who would pay for these services? ON a per-use basis by the members? Or would it be funded from the Church coffers? Or would it be a mix? Some other way of funding it?
When I was in the Stake, the Bishops essentially ignored our emails and saw our agendae as something to be filtered since they just didn’t have the time to handle the volume.
Quote:2. Is this discussion thread better posed as “how can we make a dramatic improvement in our leader’s ability to contribute to the positive experience of our members?”
Absolutely – at least for the vast majority of members, I think. Right now, a paid clergy of any kind is a dead issue, imo – but thinking of ways to help leaders contribute to positive experiences for members is a very good discussion that has potential to do some real good – in the wards and branches we attend, at the very least.
Old-Timer wrote:
Absolutely – at least for the vast majority of members, I think.Right now, a paid clergy of any kind is a dead issue,imo – but thinking of ways to help leaders contribute to positive experiences for members is a very good discussion that has potential to do some real good – in the wards and branches we attend, at the very least. It is certainly a dead issue. NOt because it is wrong but because for some 100 plus years the church has made it a point to claim we have no paid ministry. It has somehow been elevated to some kind of elite religious status. We even point the finger of scorn at other churches for paying the clergy. I can not fathom how members at this time cold accept a paid clergy even if it makes sense.
If the church had a paid clergy just think of the consequences. The leadership coming from a business backround. Your would have to have: 1. A Job Description for Bishop.
2. Annual performance reviews.
3. Special courses & degrees at BYU for the paid clergy.
4. Written goals & metrics beyond what we have today.
5. Priesthood would be like an Amway meeting. To fire up the troops.
6. Succession plans, etc.
If this sounds too sarcastic, please delete.
Mike from Milton.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.