Time for a professional clergy?

[Anonymous]

Since posting my last topic, “Near Death Bishop’s Counsel”, I have been pondering my, I would say fairly extensive, experiences with church leadership and come up with some interesting thoughts. Just as background, I was in a bishopric for 3 1/2 years, and was the Executive Secretary for several bishops, plus other church and personal experience. As I was considering this and discussing it with my wife, the following analogy/question came to me.

As the one of the founding fathers of the United States, John Adams in particular was leery of a ‘professional’ government. His vision was that dedicated citizens would enter civil services, serve for a period of years, and then get out. I think this attitude was probably somewhat consistent among the founding fathers. George Washington stepped back and let others govern, at a time, when he could have probably assumed near monarchical power due to his popularity.

What Adams could NOT envision was the rapid development of the complexity of Government, science and technology, which would quickly make his noble vision completely unworkable. I work in state government, and the depth and breadth of education required to staff and run a government is daunting. The are social workers, accountants, technology professionals, statisticians, doctors, nurses, lawyers, scientists of various disciplines, people over physical facilities, police, just to name a few. Once you are in government, it takes years to learn and understand the complexities within your area of expertise. The point is that the complexity of government quickly outran the ability of a single person with a single educational background to run it.

Now back to the church; one of our founding principles, in which we take great pride, is that of a lay clergy. I am reasonably certain that Joseph Smith and probably most Americans of his period were distrustful of the professional clergy, and rightly so, for a number of reasons. To be fair, there are a lot of strengths to our lay leadership model.

Fast forwarding now 180 years however, I now see a great parallel between the government model noted above and in what has happened in the church and society. Bishops are called as lay leaders, from a variety of professional and education backgrounds. Part of their job is administration. Part of their job is leadership. But perhaps the most serious responsibility of their calling is providing counsel in a number of areas, some closely aligned to church behavior requirements, but a lot of other personal counsel as well. In the past, even 50 years, there has been a blossoming of knowledge about various disciplines with people who specialize in marital counseling, personal counseling, substance abuse and other addiction counseling, mental health services, etc.

Once, while I was Executive Secretary, I had our bishop, who sells draperies and blinds by trade, be completely overwhelmed by a counseling visit he had with a woman in our ward who has some significant mental health issues. His request to me was not to meet with her again under those circumstances.

My point is that the lawyers, plumbers, small business owners, etc who are called to be bishops are generally COMPLETELY unprepared and unqualified to provide the diagnosis and counseling for the situations they encounter. Now to be fair, I now that the official stance is that these bishops should refer people to LDS Social Services or other reputable people for professional help, but my gut feeling is the following:

1. Too many bishop’s views of themselves are so highly colored by their burning testimonies and perhaps the authority they hold ‘from God’ that they keep many more situations in their offices than they should.

2. LDS members are pre-conditioned to accept everything a bishop says as the Word of God. I know there are some counter teachings to this, but in practice, I think many people are given bad advice from bishops, and then have no mental constructs to filter or reason their way to a better conclusion.

3. I feel really strongly about this one: LDS Social Services takes a number of professional disciplines, and overlays best practice with an LDS Dogma to the point that they ineffective at best and hurtful at worst.

4. There are a number of teachings within the church that are actually hurtful to happiness and well-being and could stand some refinement/realignment. I would say for example, that we institutionally encourage co-dependence, by making everyone’s salvation our own responsibility. We encourage anxiety by the weekly reinforcement of the list of all the things we are not. We institutionally pre-dispose our women to depression (I know this is just my opinion) by defining their role and station. I think we do a lot of pounding people (pegs) into uniform holes and then saying we love everyone and everyone has a place, as long as you are stuffed into the pre-defined round hole. A lot of people leave the church, because they can’t fit in for various reasons. I think sometimes our homogeneity fools us into thinking we are successful in aligning people to a single mold, when it might more accurately simply reflect the people who have not left.

I’ve gotten a little off track there, but what I’m wondering is what your thoughts are on this? Would the church be better served by a professional clergy, more prepared to help people with real problems for which there is a lot of professional knowledge available? Could there be a lay administrative layer and a professional layer that handles other duties?

[Anonymous]

First of all we do have a paid clergy. If you are high enough up the ranks of leadership then you get a salary. A little lower and maybe it is just expenses until you get to the local level you get no compensation for your efforts. It is not if we should pay but who gets paid.

I do however agree with you that if we are going to maintain growth in the church we need to become more sophisticated, and that means paying for a professional clergy. NOt just taking someone out of the ward an paying them, but they would have to have the education required to fulfill their assignment. Besides just the professionalism it would bring it would also allow the bishop to dedicate all his time to his responsibilities instead of sacrificing his family life so he can have a job and be bishop. Of course Bishops would tend to become more ling term positions instead of changing every 5 years.

I have always believed according to Joseph we were not to be a totally lay clergy. It even states so in the D&C

Doctrine and Covenants 70:12

He who is appointed to administer spiritual things, the same is worthy of his hire, even as those who are appointed to a stewardship to administer in temporal things.

I am afraid however this concept does not fit the business model of the church. No way are they going to give up that much revenue when they are currently getting it for free. We will not even hire custodians anymore. No way are bishops going to be paid. Remember the way the church is incorporated members have absolutely no say in the dispersal of funds. it is completely at the discretion of the president. It is always about the money.

[Anonymous]

I think having a paid clergy runs counter to the express purposes of the gospel and even the church.

The purpose is for individuals to reach the point at which they are prophets unto themselves. In the past, this point got muddied and we were taught that we were living to build up the church instead of the church existing to build up the individual. The new CHI (book 2) and more recent statements by General church leaders stress the chuch’s auxiliary role.

In spite of the (hopefully unintended) consequences of the correlation movement, “the Lord does not want an overly dependent people” (Maxwell). If there is any truth to the gospel as I understand it, then we are supposed to be progressing from sheep to shepherd. IMO, a paid clergy would be a step back toward dependency, as much or more than correlation was.

Regarding your four points, I would say that several of those reflect the very immaturity that would become even more widespread by creating a separate class of priests. That a bishop overestimates or underestimates the bounds of his calling, that member see leaders as infallible, that people are compelled or feel compelled to live up or down to a cultural norm, these are all, imo, likely to be exacerbated by a professional clergy. It’s highly likely that a paid priest will be seen as having more authority. 😯

My experiences with LDS Social Services are limited but have been mostly positive so I can’t really speak to that issue. Here, due to a lack of availability, LDSSS often refers members to non-LDS mental health professionals. The impact of dogma is much more limited.

Just my initial thoughts.

[Anonymous]

I don’t want a paid clergy. Flat-out don’t want it.

Not enough time to explain more fully now, and I understand the issues caused by a non-paid clergy, but a paid clergy is one the last things I want.

[Anonymous]

silentstruggle wrote:

…Too many bishop’s views of themselves are so highly colored by their burning testimonies and perhaps the authority they hold ‘from God’ that they keep many more situations in their offices than they should…LDS members are pre-conditioned to accept everything a bishop says as the Word of God. I know there are some counter teachings to this, but in practice, I think many people are given bad advice from bishops, and then have no mental constructs to filter or reason their way to a better conclusion…what your thoughts are on this? Would the church be better served by a professional clergy, more prepared to help people with real problems for which there is a lot of professional knowledge available? Could there be a lay administrative layer and a professional layer that handles other duties?

I understand there are some potential advantages of a paid clergy like for example that they would have more time, training, and experience to effectively deal with some of the problems they are presented with and to help them serve members better than they can now. When amateurs go ahead and try to solve problems that are often much more complicated than what they really have the motivation, background, and resources to deal with then it is likely to do more harm than good in too many cases.

However, I still think that simply switching to a professional clergy without changing any of the current theology would be almost like trying to cure cancer by putting a band-aid on it. I don’t know that it would be that easy to recruit and retain that many professional bishops and other paid positions even if they could afford it. I already feel bad for any full-time Institute and Seminary teachers or other Church employees that experience a faith crisis when their livelihood basically depends on them outwardly supporting so many doctrines they don’t really believe or have serious doubts about. At least with the part-time volunteer callings members can ask to be released if their heart isn’t in it anymore.

Personally, I think it would be better for the Church to stop pretending that they have all the answers about things like the WoW, pre-marital sex, the M-word, porn, homosexuality, lack of testimony, etc. and just let members work out some of the answers to more of these things on their own. That would probably already eliminate many of the supposed problems Church leaders waste so much time worrying about.

Also, I think simply focusing more on trying to serve members based on their own personal needs and well-being rather than expecting members to sacrifice so much for the sake of the organization would already go a long way towards improving the Church without really needing to implement a complete overhaul. I think a lot of the work involved in most of these callings is completely unnecessary and is more a product of Church leaders thinking callings are important to keep members involved rather than all this work really being essential for wards to function at a minimal level.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

However, I still think that simply switching to a professional clergy without changing any of the current theology would be almost like trying to cure cancer by putting a band-aid on it.

Also, I think simply focusing more on trying to serve members based on their own personal needs and well-being rather than expecting members to sacrifice so much for the sake of the organization would already go a long way towards improving the Church without really needing to implement a complete overhaul.

This. I really don’t think our “clergy” is the problem. I think most of the issues stem from traditions and culture, and I don’t think a paid clergy is going to fix that.

mercyngrace wrote:

I think having a paid clergy runs counter to the express purposes of the gospel and even the church.

The purpose is for individuals to reach the point at which they are prophets unto themselves. In the past, this point got muddied and we were taught that we were living to build up the church instead of the church existing to build up the individual.

… IMO, a paid clergy would be a step back toward dependency, as much or more than correlation was.

that member see leaders as infallible, that people are compelled or feel compelled to live up or down to a cultural norm, these are all, imo, likely to be exacerbated by a professional clergy. It’s highly likely that a paid priest will be seen as having more authority. 😯

YES YES YES! As one who dislikes the the LDS church’s stance on authority and priesthood, and the whole Follow The Prophet mentality, i think going to a paid clergy could be disastrous. I think the church needs to ween itself off priesthood authority, and force individuals to find their own pathways – rather than expecting others to do it for them.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

YES YES YES! As one who dislikes the the LDS church’s stance on authority and priesthood, and the whole Follow The Prophet mentality, i think going to a paid clergy could be disastrous. I think the church needs to ween itself off priesthood authority, and force individuals to find their own pathways – rather than expecting others to do it for them.

I really think church leaders at the highest levels are trying to do this. The funniest thing happened after the CHI was released last year. I was talking to my bishop and told him that the changes in the CHI and the recent letter advising members to stop writing to general authorities for counsel but to turn to local leaders instead were related. I told him that the church was trying to raise the bar for local and regional leaders, pushing them to lead by the spirit and to follow Christ directly. At the time, he raised his eyebrows and looked thoughtful but I wasn’t sure if he could see what I was seeing. Then, comments expressing this very sentiment were expressed in the most recent broadcast about CHI book 2. I had to laugh thinking that my bishop was probably sitting in the meeting remembering our conversation. LOL!

What I see is an inspired move toward getting members to break the chains of cultural mormonism and become disciples of Christ. It’s a move toward using the church as a vehicle for approaching God and serving man rather than as its own destination.

It’s this progressive move toward the ideal that encourages me to hold onto the things I do believe.

[Anonymous]

mercyngrace wrote:

What I see is an inspired move toward getting members to break the chains of cultural mormonism and become disciples of Christ. It’s a move toward using the church as a vehicle for approaching God and serving man rather than as its own destination.

God I hope you are right. But how long will it take and will I be forced out before it happens? Hmmm?

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

mercyngrace wrote:

What I see is an inspired move toward getting members to break the chains of cultural mormonism and become disciples of Christ. It’s a move toward using the church as a vehicle for approaching God and serving man rather than as its own destination.

God I hope you are right. But how long will it take and will I be forced out before it happens? Hmmm?

I think, but I’m just guessing, that the further you are from Utah, the more quickly you will see this happen. My feeling is that places where the gospel is less bound in culture will be more open to letting go of all the silly trappings we’ve built up around the church and our faith.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think bishops should be paid. But I do think they need greater support, such as an expanded network of professionals who are capable of helping people with problems that go beyond their expertise. I think I told you I tried to get some cognitive based therapy to help me deal with obsessive thoughts and negative thinking a while ago — something I think has been a huge stumbling block to my achieving long periods of activity in the Church. LDS social services was a dead-end. I couldn’t get an appointment because they were booked. I suggested a group course where people could come together to an learn CBT principles en masse to conserve resources. No such program existed.

With the funds the Church has, I think it would be worthwile to have a larger network of support people in place to help the Bishops. We have people with addiction problems, marital problems, and others, and Bishops are sorely unprepared to deal with this.

I also think funds should be in place to subsidize families who can’t afford the professional help they need. We say that Fast Offering funds are only for life-sustaining needs. Well, mental heath and personal well-being are also important to success in this life, and in acheiving temporal success at even a minimal level. And the worn-out adage that you should “pray, read the scriptures and go to Church/Temple” is NOT the panacea for all problems.

I think more funds should be made available to help relieve the Bishops of the tasks which require more professional training.

Perhaps these business entities the church has invested in could use their cashflow to help improve the lives of their members rather than purchasing malls “to preserve the area around the temple” ? What a revotuionary thought — the personal well-being of members ahead of real estate development. Perhaps more than 5% of gross Ward receipts should be funnelled back to help nuture the engine of wealth for the ecclesiastic side of the Church.

Also, notwithstanding the CHI changes that have been made — Bishops have far too much to do. I would love to see a paid team of counselors at the Stake level who deal with individuals who problems within their stake. I would love to see Bishopric’s counselors allowed to take on some of the resonsibilities that only Bishops can handle. I would love to see the these talented men they take out of the Stake to be High Counselors do more than beat on the preisthood leaders about home teaching, and to truly support the Bishop in having his Ward leaders coached more closely to create consistently good programs.

Yes, the system is flawed when the Wards, which are the lifeblood of the Church, are left to struggle with problems that are best handled by professionals, without sufficient funds to make their programs good. And the system is flawed with a Ward structure that makes the Bishop run off his feet at the expense of so many other things.

After years of thinking the Bishop was my spiritual counselor, I no longer believe this. They have come up short too many times. And yes, I will never go to my Biship (an immigration officer) to help me deal with my problems with wrong thinking. He wouldn’t have a clue. I’m on my own to find a counselor.

[Anonymous]

Thanks all for the thoughts.

This has been one of my nuttier thoughts. I really DON”T want a paid clergy at the local ward level either. I see the importance overall of involvement and commitment at a local level. I don’t want people getting in at that level for monetary purposes.

There are a lot of strengths in our system, and some inherent weaknesses.

I just think we need more sophisticated bishops. Maybe that means more training, and more follow up/accountability. I really think that to truly help solve problems, they need to get away from the ‘just pray more’ or ”you can find all of the answers you need in the scriptures’ mentality. They would benefit greatly from some structure knowledge about what they should hand off to professional people.

I still hold by my assessment of LDS Social Services. I’m sure in a lot of cases they do a lot of good however. I do know that best practice gets overlayed by church dogma however. Not sure that is productive.

[Anonymous]

silentstruggle wrote:

Thanks all for the thoughts.

I just think we need more sophisticated bishops. Maybe that means more training, and more follow up/accountability. I really think that to truly help solve problems, they need to get away from the ‘just pray more’ or ”you can find all of the answers you need in the scriptures’ mentality. They would benefit greatly from some structure knowledge about what they should hand off to professional people.

I

More training will only work if there is drastic reduction in meetings and other responsibilities. I think it it is unfair to ask men to sacrifice so much time and energy. they l already basically work another job being bishop. Laying on more meetings and training is going to overwhelm many. This was the main reason I like a paid clergy. If you are going to ask someone to do that much and you want to hold them to a high standard you better be willing to compensate them accordingly. It is unfair to hold bishops accountable for much when we overwork them and have expectations beyond their ability. It is fine to say keep the clergy unpaid but then we must be willing to accept what we get. Untrained overworked individuals in many cases. I do not see how you can have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

The Church is trying hard to get members to quit going to the Bishop for every problem in their lives, ironically. They are trying to spread the load, so to speak – and they are trying to reduce and shorten meetings. They are saying that there is flexibility in units that are too small to run all the programs fully, and they are stressing that “the members are NOT there to staff the Church; the Church is there to support the members”. (Elder Packer) Going from the idea to the practical implementation is the rub.

I am 100% certain the top leadership is well aware of the burden placed on Bishops and are trying to get local leaders and members to quit viewing them as omniscient and omnipotent – at least in practice and expectation. I don’t think they need MORE training; I think they need BETTER and BROADER training. That, however, is up to the Stake Presidents who actually do coordinate monthly training for Bishops. The issue, imo, is that the training time currently is not as broadly focused as it should be – even though there is some tremendous training that happens in that setting in many stakes, and the content varies widely – based on the personality and direction of the Stake Presidency.

[Anonymous]

One of the problems many denominations have is paying clergy. It also means that when wards merge etc, redundancies etc are in order.

However, I do think paid cleaners etc ARE a good idea.

The debate reminds me of the amateur/shamateur/professional debate in sports. When sports go professional there’s always a problem or two, and before they go professional, there’s usually people already being paid under the table (shamateurs – think those East German gymnasts and runners for example)

I hate to say this, but most of the GAs are shamateurs in this business. Pres Monson gets paid, not necessarily in money, but he gets travel expenses, free food and accomodation and everything else he needs. I don’t begrudge him this, to be honest, but let’s be open about this.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

With the funds the Church has, I think it would be worthwile to have a larger network of support people in place to help the Bishops. We have people with addiction problems, marital problems, and others, and Bishops are sorely unprepared to deal with this.

^^This.

Continue with “citizen” clergy, add paid professional “ministers.” (people who take care of the complex, professional-level problems such as mental health, counselling, etc.).

[Author]

Posts