The role of the minister's wife is in a state of flux, it seems to me (at least in the Sydney diocese with which I am most familiar). Back in the day, it was obvious (ok I am simplifying) - Rev and Mrs were in it together. A parish was more like a small business than a profession. If you went to the corner store in Sydney, you might get Con or you might get Tula (back in the 70s anyway). Both of them were in the business together. This went without saying. Over at St Bloggs, it was pretty much the same. I worked for one minister and his wife for whom this was exactly how it was: Mrs was in charge of all ministry to women in the parish and had input on all decision making at every level pretty much.
Nowadays, we expect our pastors to be professionals. If there's a ministry to be done, we pay for it. So, we have a women's pastor and a youth worker to do what was previously done by amateurs. And this means team meetings and five year plans and training and all the rest. Frequently now the pastor does not work from his study at home but goes out in the morning to an office with a secretary and his colleagues.Often, the pastor's wife is in an odd situation then: is she part of the team or not? She and her husband may have planted the church: now it is bigger, is she still given input in decision making? Does she 'outrank' the young tyro curate fresh out of college and full of ideas? What should her role be now that we have a women's pastor who has a theological degree? He is trained after all, and a professional. She is merely amateur. Also, because most of our ministers and their wives come from the professional classes, she may be pursuing her career outside the parish, and we have come to accept this as her right since she is not the one being paid, and so we don't even inquire.
The negative results have been: trouble on ministry teams where it was felt the minister's wife was interfering, when all she was doing was expecting the kind of input that she formerly had when the church was small; or, an increasing dislocation from the church felt by ministry wives.
However: looking at some websites of Charismatic churches, I noticed a real difference. Time after time you are welcomed to the church not by the pastor but by the couple: Brian and Bobbie for example, or Phil and Chris. I don't think that this churches have a particularly egalitarian theology, so it is not merely a case of a difference at that level. But I have yet to find the Sydney Anglican church where this is done: inevitably you are greeted by the professional - the man, in other words. The contrast is quite marked: you are left in no doubt that the charismatic church is a family affair, with a ministry shared by male and female (whatever view of headship is expressed).
55 comments:
Does she 'outrank' the young tyro curate fresh out of college and full of ideas?
The pastor's wife has seniority.
If you don't believe that this is so, it is because you are just about to become a church planter.
But it seems to me in case after case that this seniority is just not recognised at all.
Actually, I don't understand your church planter comment. Please explain?
Sorry, I meant that once you seek to overthrow the authority of the minister's wife, you are out of there and looking for another job, sunshine. You can try to be an assistant somewhere else, or you can go somewhere where the only person you answer to is God—church planting.
I'm not speaking from personal experience. I'm just reflecting on reality once you seek to overturn the natural order of things.
Well my anecdotal evidence is that things can be more complicated. It can be the minister himself who all of a sudden totally bypasses his Mrs, when she has been part of the team since day 1. And just how do you manage the women's worker-pastor's wife dynamic?
"A parish was more like a small business than a profession. "
Yikes. Small business? Profession?
Brian and Bobbie represent family?
Michael this is both a surprising and disappointing post from you.
Mind you, if you are speaking mostly from your experience in Sydney, I have never been able to understand low church Anglican's idea of church and ministry, but if that is how it is understood, yikes and yikes.
I guess there can be a risk of what Gordon talks about. Equally there seem to be problems the other way.
1. Churches that see the Pastor's wife in terms of "we get two for one"
2. Expectations based on the previous wife -she was a good musician, led ladies fellowship, ran the Sundayschool -why doesn't the new pastor's wife
3. The situation talked about here where the wife is just ignored completely
4. The situation where someone wants to hurt the pastor -but can't be seen to do something so unholy -so attacks the wife and the children.
What training and help do pastor's wives get? I'm pleased to see there is some form of spouse training happening here at Oak Hill -there's probably more we need to think about collectively though!
Anonymous, you have taken me too literally and I guess that is understandable. 'More like a small business' - I mean by this partly to contrast with current professionalism, but also to stress the family aspect of ministry: a mum and dad business is a closer parallel if we must have one than a suburban solicitor (which i think is the prevailing analogy, and I see plenty of this in the UK and in other churchpersonships too, to respond to the jibe). The analogy is just that: an inexact but revealing comparison. Brian and Bobbie as family? All I am saying is that you see both faces (whatever the character of the people involved). Cut me some anonymous slack!
Thought-provoking post Mikey. I am sure you are right about a lot of that. Obviously I think that the Pastor can be Mrs or Miss Pastor, but your point still stands. That aside I guess the key thing for me is that ministry in the NT often seems to be very much a shared activity between husband and wife. I guess what would be sensible and good in such situations would be for that to be formally recognised and authorised so that everyone (pastor, spouse, and congregation) knows where they stand e.g. bishop's licence as a lay minister, ordination to the diaconate or presbyterate (depending on your theology). In non-episcopal churches, it would seem advisable for the pastor to have a conversation with the church council/elders/whatever they have in advance of his or her appointment to clarify their expectations. Obviously some spouses would decline this for various reasons (don't feel called to that ministry, have a career, busy enough with the kids etc) but for Bobbie and/or Catherine and/or Gaby that might be one workaround.
The informal arrangements can cause much annoyance to some, not least to women and others in ministry who find it rather frustrating that they have worked hard in their training only to be constantly outranked by someone who has, to their mind, no training. If you had some kind of formal but low-key system like a bishop's licence, it might help with this too since you could encourage licencee's to top up areas of training and experience where they are lacking.
If you believe in prosperity gospel then God and your church are able to bless your family in a more tax effective way if you are both paid as pastors...
Thanks for that Sean... I think the training thing shows in a way how professionalised we have become - and i believe in training! What you say about couple in the NT is intriguing.It is worth saying that the single option is given plenty of airtime
As an recently-ex pastor's wife (we're still married but he's teaching in a theological college these days), I completely agree with your observations. I would only add that the issues extend beyond staff team relationships to those with church members - who usually seem to have confused and divergent views of the role (or lack thereof!) of a pastor's wife.
Thanks for this post!
Thought provoking Michael, but understandably written from your experience of ministry in a big city. I minister in a small rural community, my second such Parish. I'm the only paid pastor, and no-one has seen a curate in decades. To survive we need to develop the gifts of everyone and build a team of lay ministers, one of whom is my wife. Her role can cause all the frictions that you mention and needs sensitivity, yet she is appreciated by some, an encouragement to others to get involved, and a threat to some who see, wrongly I believe, their power at risk. Things would be very different if she pursued her career, which she sacrificed to support my entering the ministry, or if we had small children. Part of her struggle for acceptance in being part of the team is the fact that she is the first minister's wife in some time not to have paid employment elsewhere. Yet there is a greater recognition of the minister's wife's right to make choices about her involvement in the life of the church and what roles she will play.
Of course, the other aspect to this issue which is increasingly on the agenda of many churches, is what to do with the male spouse of the minister. I realise that that won't be an issue in Sydney Diocese any time soon, but I believe the advent of women's ordination and male clergy spouses has helped break down some of the stereotypical expectations of clergy wives.
Thanks Nicole for distinguishing between a pastor's ex-wife and an ex-pastor's wife! We have all heard the horror stories of badly drawn boundaries - parishioners coming into the manse uninvited to grab the milk or what have you... eek!
Lest I be misunderstood: I think the 'professionalism' of the ministry is a both a reality we have to live with (with some benefits) and a temptation we have to avoid. One of the side effects has been confusion over the spouse's role in the church. Male pastors (self-included) see themselves as 'professionals', so, it seems amateur to include your (less-trained) wife in the business of church life. Would a banker ask his wife's advice? But: we are not professionals! And the church is more family than bank, yes? Fewer couples at theological colleges come with a real sense that this is a joint vocation - or perhaps, with a knowledge of how to make this vocation more a shared one in practice. Yet, it seems to me that this is a shame. You also encounter couples where the spouse is, it seems, only acquiescing to the move into ministry, and intends to lead his/her own life and even ministry quite separate to the parish. I think this can make for difficulties down the track - because a parish ain't a bank! The pastor's devotion to his family and too his ministry become not part and parcel of the same calling but actually a conflict in his life.
I think it is worth remembering that the Reformation re-invented the pastor's wife and the ministry family with its hospitable home and many children. This was what replaced the monastic communities in the Protestant world. It was (as Diarmaid McCullogh observes) in many ways the backbone of the Reformation. It is an interesting tradition: one which we are on the verge of losing...
A side issue (and a complex one), but it's interesting to consider on the one hand where the minister's wife (implicitly?) slots into the 'organisational hierarchy' of a church, or should slot in, and how that fits with complimentarian gender roles in places like Sydney, esp when it comes to young, male assistant ministers, for example. Messy.
Interesting point about the 'family' face of Charismatic churches, I've seen similar anecdotal examples, it is an interesting distinction.
Thankyou Michael in particular for this last comment. My husband and I have been sad to see many theologically well instructed people do a really bad job of marriage and parenting (Paul's pastoral epistles would lead us to think that in some cases this disqualifies them from such leadership). We certainly think sound doctrine and theological training is critical, but so is a life lived in humble submission to the Lordship of Jesus as revealed in His Word. I wonder if the professionalisation of paid pastoral ministry is appealing because it hides a lot of ungodliness. I guess the other side of the coin is that this professionalisation has produced more families in churches that don't 'do' marriage and family in a particularly counter cultural, distinctively Christian way because those in leadership may not be placing a high priority on modelling it themselves. I speak as a 26 year old mother of two who is very grateful for the unique men and women who have seen their families and their homes as the first place where their ministry happens and blesses others.
While driving through Columbus , Ohio my wife and I were struck by the sign at the parking place at a central city church reserved for "Pastor and First Lady."
I've spoken to a few younger pastor wives who are frankly glad that the tradition of "two for price of one" has passed. They don't want the pressure or responsibility of being a de-facto member of staff.
Yes, but I think reaction from the women is in itself is a symptom of the professionalisation of the ministry. The expectations are very much higher than before even!
The two for the price of one rhetoric is of course terrible, because it sounds like she comes cheap, or at least, for free. Again, the undervaluing of this role is implicit.
I would love anyone to show me the Anglican parish which introduces the pastor and spouse as a team on a website. Any takers? Doesn't the charismatic model have something to commend it (snide jokes about prosperity aside?)
I appreciate your thoughtful post about a complicated issue. I think it is a tragedy that so many people seem to have moved to the "professional" model you describe. I find it hard to imagine what it would be like to be in ministry without the active support, involvement and input of my wife. She increases my effectiveness many-fold (we are in a mission context, not parish ministry).
How a wife gets involved in leadership is complex. But I think we are in serious trouble if we start thinking the amount of training should be a measure of a person's 'ranking' in the church! If we are ranking at all surely it should be based more on factors such as godliness, wisdom and experience. And aren't these things we should expect in not only our pastors but also their wives?
And we are kidding ourselves if we think pastors are not affected by the values and priorities of their wives even if publicly they seem disconnected from the ministry.
Good discussion...
If I might weigh in, I 'accidentally' wound up doing a far bit of evangelistic speaking around Sydney at various women's events over the last 3 or so years and one of the things I found was that there are actually quite a few places where the minister's wife is either heading up the women's ministry team or very much involved. I don't know whether there was any formal introduction of the minister and his wife on a website, for example, but I think that the reality was nonetheless there. Where the minister's wife was absent, often the women's team felt dislocated from the church in some way; it took me a while to work out the dynamic, and it's only an observation in passing, but I think that on the whole there is a lot more team ministry still happening out there (and even in our generation) than may be immediately obvious. I think this is partly demonstrated by the concerns and the attendance at the Ministry Wives conference (for example) which I believe has increased its attendance in the last 5 or so years.
And yes, I agree, its a minefield of unexploded conflicts waiting to happen. But I've been impressed at how many women I know are willing to walk through it. JMB
you want anglican churches that introduce themselves by the pastor and his wife you should check out the New Wine Network - all the main churches do this and the summer events are always compared by husband and wife teams (much to the frustration of many of the women in ministry who are not married to someone famous!).
But I'm all in favour of this idea of joint vocations and family calling to church pastoring (in the same way that a family is called to the mission field together - you won't find many clergy children who haven't had to make sacrifices for the ministry so why not include them in the calling?).
One of the real problems we've experienced with this is that it has the potential to create christian celebrity couples... the Posh and Becks of the UK Charismatic world! You log on to a "professional" church website and you're met with a list of what they believe, you log on to a "family" church's website and you're met with a manicured couple. In services they'll have a moment for "family news" in which they'll let you know about how their dog is doing or whatever ...This gets a bit strained when the church pushes 1000 members. I don't think this outweighs the advantages of having a more family focused leadership model but I think there are significant pitfalls to be avoided in it!
HOWEVER a serious concern is that I'm wondering where we get our Biblical backing for this? Obviously we've got the elders wives advice but does that go so far as to back up our point?
And I think if we're going to argue for pastor's wives heading up the women's ministry rather than someone ordained (as a deacon/priest) then we need to take a step back and consider
1. if this means that women will continue to get teaching and pastoring with less theological depth than men and
2. what our theology of ordination is... is it just about overall leadership of a church?
Maybe we should make it more possible for both husband and wife to get ordained at the same time... people get priested on so little training in many of the part time courses in the UK atleast, in an ideal world couldn't we make it easier for ordinand's spouces to get training and be deaconed if they feel called to be part of the ministry in their churches?
And then you have the issue of the presuppositions.
Are we implying that people who go into ministry single are in some way less equipt to lead a church?
I guess we're also implying that the call to lead a church superceeds the call to be a doctor or a headmistress and so if the job is too demanding to also run the neo-monastry in the vicarage they should automatically give up their day jobs that they've been called to for the last 10 years? Or is it that the husband's calling automaticaly outweighs the wife's? Would love to know what you think... I haven't got many answers.
Spot on Phil, spot on!!
Actually on my last question I think the C of E has thought of this in that they at least interview both partners before you can get ordained to make sure that you're both called to this ministry. Maybe the need is just to bringing this understanding back to the level it used to be at... similar to the call to be missionaries... you can hardly keep your calling to being a headmistress untouched if you're also considering a family call to Outer Mongolian heardsmen!
Also I think it needs to be said that there is still room for ordained single women within a family run church set up!!! ;o)
My sending church was a great example of this where the vicar's wife was more of an evangelist than a pastor so headed up the outreach of the church and they employed a long term Women's Minister to work along side them.
Thanks again for a great post and for getting a really useful conversation happening.
I thought I should quickly clarify that when I commented about the 'confused and divergent views' of the congregation about the role of the pastor's wife I wasn't meaning to complain about parishioners dropping into the manse to grab some milk. (Actually, in our case the milk- and sugar-borrowers were usually not the congregation members but the men from the local boarding houses - I suppose they were still 'parishioners' in an Anglican sense!).
What I had in mind in my original comment was the dichotomy between those who think the pastor's wife has no role and really ought to be pursuing a career of her own (the 'two careers' model) and those who assume the minister's wife should always be the one to run the women's ministry, set up the creche, etc, etc (the 'two for the price of one' mentality).
Both approaches, I think, miss the things that the Bible does place an emphasis on as ministry tasks that will involve a costly commitment of time and labour for the pastor's wife. (I'm assuming we take it seriously that the way a pastor raises his children and opens up his home in hospitality are fundamental to what qualifies him to be a pastor and - by implication - fundamental to what his task is as a pastor).
If the pastor's wife is at a stage in life where there's time and energy left over after these things, then I presume that it's a matter for her and her husband to work out, in the light of her gifts and the needs and opportunities around them, whether she might do other ministries around the church and maybe some paid work during the week.
But before we even get to think about those possibilities, I think there is a huge and important ministry role that we ought to take much more seriously than we do.
I think MTC does a great job of preparing women for life in ministry families. I'm very thankful for what I learnt from faculty wives and from other student wives in my time there.
I remember our first interview prior to college. The then principal asked me at least 3 times if I was keen for us to be in ministry. I think that was about all he asked either of us!
BTW, anyone ever seen a charo minister showing off his fat and dowdy wife on his church website? I suspect that there may be other things at play apart from seeing ministry as a family thing...
Wow, that's way harsh Simone and not a little cynical! It is pretty hard to respond if that means I have to say 'hey, get a load of the fat wife in THIS welcome picture'... Petersham AOG (suburban Sydney) don't have a photo, but at least the welcome letter comes from the couple. So, the emphasis on appearance is less a feature there. At Oxford Falls CLC, you wouldn't have said Phil and Chris Pringle are a couple of fashion models, but they are well groomed, certainly.
Sally makes raises a really good point about singles. We currently go to a church with an unmarried rector. Mind you, it is pretty obvious to everyone that one of the Assistant minister's wives has assumed the mantle of rector's wife. It seems to work well. That's by the by: given the prominence and advocacy of singleness in the NT, we ought to hesistate before endorsing the married couple as the ONLY pattern for ministry. The danger for the bachelor/spinster minister is still professionalism though: Paul insistently used familial imagery to describe his relationship to his churches.
So are we to expect a pretty photo of you AND Catherine up on your blog in future then Michael?
;)
http://www.new-wine.org/about_us/Our%20Leadership.htm
lots of couples...
I am not Anglican, and I have only entered an Anglican church a few times. One time was to get married! Regardless of my entry into the denominational building - may I suggest that this conversation about husband and wife being seen as equal, or both carrying the same authority, or appearing to - or how the wife is seen by the other leaders of the church is not the real issue.
I hear what you are saying about the couple being seen together. Sure it would be lovely if the husband and wife posed for a nice picture or had a letter of welcome from them as a couple. I am all for that, and that is what we would do, however, again this is not the big issue, in my opinion.
The issue is, about how our wife sees she fits in. If our wife is feeling that she is not getting the respect or treatment she feels she needs, or deserves, then possibly we as men are not leading and teaching our wife in the right way. It comes back to the man.
I see it like this, if the church has an expectation of your wife, and you have not communicated what your wife will do when you take the job on, then you have not lead your church family well & may I suggest you are not leading your own family well.
My wife meets up with quite a few women who are in ministry or are training for ministry. To be frank it is so discouraging to hear of the insecurity of these women. They are expecting to go into ministry with their husbands and are expressing such selfish and arrogant statements. There is not a heart for serving the Lord, at least in what they are communicating. They are going in wanting to call the shots, expecting a whopping great manse & perks... but by goodness, don't want to be asked to do anything.
In my opinion we have moved away from what 1 Tim 3, requires for elders. And as one of your guests have written,there is a cost required in serving the Lord.
I wholeheartedly agree that husband and wife and our children are all called to ministry. How they do this, may look different then what has been expected in the past. But may I suggest that the wife has been called to serve her family first. Then she has been called to serve her church family. These must not be mixed up! This must be taught to our parishioners, because I don't think they understand the teaching of biblical manhood and womanhood.
I don't think the charismatic "family - looking" church is what we are wanting to emulate, quite frankly. We should be aiming to emulate biblical manhood and womanhood in our ministry. We should be teaching about the one who came to serve and not be served. The one who taught us to guard the good deposit. Not worrying if we or our family are getting the respect & honor we think they deserve...
may I suggest that this conversation about husband and wife being seen as equal, or both carrying the same authority, or appearing to - or how the wife is seen by the other leaders of the church is not the real issue.
I think careful reading of the discussion would reveal that we are only using the website thingy as a symbol of the deeper issue. And the symbols we use are very revealing of self-perceptions.
I don't think the charismatic "family - looking" church is what we are wanting to emulate, quite frankly. We should be aiming to emulate biblical manhood and womanhood in our ministry.
The two are different in your mind? I take it 'bib m and w' is code for 'complementarian on gender roles'. I know of many charismatic churches that are quite complementarian on gender roles as it turns out.
anonymous: thanks for that misogynistic rant. We all need to be put in our place, I guess...
http://www.stpauls.org.nz/content.php?section_id=10&content_type_id=15
another great example of an anglican church (this time a bit closer to Oz) with husband and wife in complimentary roles both leading the church...
I wonder if we're getting off topic in this conservative vs charismatic issue... I'm sure we all just want to become more like the Biblical Jesus whoever we can learn this from. I think I foget my own poverty sometimes.
Just a quick corrective to throw into this interesting discussion. Regarding the 'Brian and Bobbie' phenomenon, I think you'll find that pentecostalism does have a long history of egalitarianism with regard to women's ministry. Perhaps it stems from the strong view of the place of supernatural gifting, but pentecostals were calling and ordaining women to the ministry long before the mainline denominations.
My hunch is that the 'Brian and Bobbie' and 'Phil and Chris' thing ties back into this heritage, as well as presenting a modern friendly face to church life.
Catherine there is no misogynistic ranting. God made man and woman equal. Women are important, special and gifted. I am not trying to put anyone in their place. I am saying that Brian and Bobbie are both called but have different roles at different times...
Sorry if I have misunderstood the topic of discussion.
Perhaps, Tony: however -
1- for the sake of the discussion, I wanted to put the spotlight on current conservative evangelical practice and its professionalised culture rather than to scrutinise charismatic pratice
2 - pentecostalism might be egalitarian in theory, but I do not know of a single pentecostal church which has a female senior pastor, unless she is married to the male senior pastor (at least not in Oz). They have a long history of female evangelists, Aimee Semple MacPherson being the most famous. But not pastors or church leaders as such.
3 - I would love anonymouses to become nonymous!
I was wondering if someone could identify some of the features of professionalism in ministry that may have a negative impact on that ministry?
Well: the very issue under discussion is a case in point. A professional generally does his work at arms' length from his/her family. So, my friend who is a barrister in London travels doesn't bring his clients home to meet his wife and involve her in discussing their cases. She has no expertise in this area - she is a doctor. If ministers see themselves as professionals, is it any wonder if their spouses begin to feel somewhat alienated from the church.
I could add more to this: professionalism in churches can dismepower the laity, because a professional is an expert and we begin to believe that ministry ought to be left to the paid and trained professionals. And so on..
Thanks.
I strongly agree with the idea that laity are quite disempowered these days - have been struggling to understand why this is so for some time.
I am thinking that the treatment of 'clergy wives' is one expression of a deeper problem, that of christians no longer knowing how to value one another in a church.
I am not sure if professionalism explains it, but it may. Certainly lots to think on!!!
Michael,
I appreciate your insights on this issue and love reading your blog.
I'm a pastor in a Pentecostal church in Aust. and know of many senior pastors who are women (not co-leading with husband).
You might want to check out
http://www.imagine-church.com/ which is a large AOG church in Melbourne. Also a pentecostal emerging/ missional church at http://urbanlife.org.au/ which has a female senior pastor.
BTW, my wife tells me she used to work with your at SACS in Sydney...Niki Vasilakis...she says g'day
I think that what Nicole said was really helpful. Perhaps us women feel that unless our ministry can be adverstised on a church website and earn an income then we don't want to do it. I think we need to train ourselves to love doing things that not many people will see, but that many will experience the effects of (ie, loving and trustinf Jesus for ourselves, being an irreplaceable helper to our husband; raising our children to know, love, trust, serve and be like Jesus). This does not necessarily mean that that is all that we do, but it should not be less, and nothing will be more significant.
On the topic of women's ministry, perhaps if we started focussing more on Titus 2 model of older women training the younger women in godliness (as wives and mothers among other things) then the biggest category would not be ordination and employment, but meaningful and deliberate relationships that do teach good and deep theology, but also train in godliness.
Oh - say hi to Nikki for me, Tim!
And I stand greatly corrected about the female pastors in charismatic churches. So, apologies to Tony!
In pentecostal churches, the wife is generally seen as a pastor as well as the husband, even though the husband is usually perceived as the "leader".
TP is right that pentecostal churches have a long history of ordaining women - Aimee Semple Mcpherson is the archetypal example.
I've found mixed messages being given on gender roles in Hillsong. Sometimes it seems very traditional, and at other times very egalitarian. They certainly have no problems with female preachers (Joyce Myer for example - although Joyce teaches complimantarianism in marriage).
Yes: but what about non-charismatic churches then? (I was only using them as an illustration after all!)
It would indeed be wise for us to focus our attention on our own churches in the conservative tradition - most of the comments about pentecostal churches are irrelevant because Pentecostalism is a movement that includes people and churches that take very divergent views on issues. It is far from homogeneous.
To return to our own circles - I have been reflecting on this issue as an ordinand who is married. My experiences of conservative churches has led me to think that there is a need to start this whole conversation quite far back in one's assumptions about ministry. Questions along the following lines shape the outcome - Do we believe that the minister should share his life and home with people in a real tangible way? Or do we think that as an alternative it is possible to discharge ministry in a way that is more professional?
I believe it is essential to share homelife in a genuine way if we are to follow the pastoral epistles' expectations. If we do not do so then people cannot make the evaluations of our lives the epistles say they ought to make, we lose the relational context for teaching and proclaiming.
It will look different in varying circumstances, but the transparent family life will give the wife a real, crucial role in shaping the ministry - it will certainly be a role that cannot be usurped by somebody who is merely professionally qualified or is not committed to the minister by ties that go beyond Anglican licensing!
I would suggest that MJ is correct to raise the issue of professionalism as the real hot potatoe - struggles to work out the role of a minister's wife flow from the deep wide-spread acceptance of the world's models of business as healthy aspirations for church ministry. We are a long way from facing how deep the rot goes!
It has been interesting to reflect on this discussion as a scientist: the move to a professional model began for us long ago and has been taken to extremes. Even so it doesn't take too much thought to realise that things get left out by this way of conceiving the job/role/whatever. One is the aspect of truly personal dedication, and (if I may use the word) spiritual discipline, that is often involved if one is properly serious about the work. And of course the connection between competence and paid professional role is a feature of our times, rather than something timeless: I need only mention Charles Darwin, a gentleman amateur if ever there was one, but a byword for caution and discipline and rigour.
Michael's comment about professionalism disempowering the laity also had me thinking of the notion of "calling", which has appeared in some recent posts, but is conspicuous by its absence in Sydney Anglican circles. To be sure, this sort of language is easily abused, and in some traditions has quite a technical (over-technical?) interpretation. But I don't think we can do without it. The commonplace idea that someone can be following "their true calling", or that they might have missed it, is too good a fit to the way we are. And a part of that idea is to recognise cases where a person is fitted for some task or role, qualifications or formal rank notwithstanding --- and to treat that fitness with respect.
One of the remarkable things about the obsession with "full-time ministry" that swept through the Diocese a while back, was that it managed to get all of these things wrong simultaneously: a low view of other "professions" (and it's worth considering the etymology of that word; dare I also call them "vocations"?); in some cases a cavalier attitude to training; and a strong view of the full-timer as the paradigm of Christian service. As someone with the wrong vocation, it was always clear that I didn't fit this conception, but it never occurred to me to apply it to a clergy spouse: is a clergy spouse in full-time ministry? Should (s)he be? What would such language even mean?
Maybe ideas of calling/fitness/gifts, and a sensitivity to such things, provide a way into the clergy spouse question. It's no great advance on fixed role-expectations of the past, if we simply replace them with new fixed role-expectations (such as the dual-career couple), or alternate between the two. How about considering people case-by-case?
Great post Michael. Agree about the problems of professionalism and confusion over minister wife roles.
Thanks for raising the issue: a common problem, it seems!
given the prominence and advocacy of singleness in the NT, we ought to hesistate before endorsing the married couple as the ONLY pattern for ministry.
Only hesitate? How about throwing that endorsement out of the window? ;-)
The danger for the bachelor/spinster minister is still professionalism though: Paul insistently used familial imagery to describe his relationship to his churches.
Yes, indeed - though it ought to be precisely the singles who highlight that being a church family doesn't simply mean a 'family church', or a gathering of (nuclear) 'families'. Hauerwas is really worth reading on this point, esp his essay "The Radical Hope of the Annunciation: Why Both Single and Married Christians Welcome Children".
I was able to find a picture of your sister for our church website. Do we still count since we are family? (Beth didn't make it onto the welcome video though)
www.summerhillanglican.org.au
I think Bruce Y. is heading in the right direction.
From the first Nony Mouse on this thread who...accidentally forgot to add initials but then, reading MJ's prickly response thought why don't you just ban anonymous comments then?
Intentionally yours anon this time.
Hey, no fair - you were pretty prickly yourself!
Anonymous: thanks for the support, but on the current topic I'm afraid I'm with Michael.
Banning anonymous comments completely is draconian, and worth avoiding. But that doesn't make it fun to be in dispute with someone whose name you don't know.
How is the weather in Melbourne anyway, Nonymouse?
Apologies for prickles, seriously. Bruce speaks wisdom as always.
No offense, but you guys come across as a bit nuts. Call me a simple soul but I find this whole thing a bit ridiculous.
The wife of a pastor is a person you know, she is not a mere chattel. She is a human being with a name, an identity and a history, a person with her own thoughts and gee, quite possibly her own dreams. Maybe she shares her husband's passion for building the church and is happy to contribute. Maybe she prefers to pursue her own career.
I used to attend a church where the senior pastor's wife was part of "2 for the price of 1". She was a wonderful and important part of the church. When he retired and the new senior pastor was appointed, his wife is a psychologist and had her own counselling practice. Although she was his wife and she was always there every Sunday next to her husband (except when she has to vsiit family do other things etc) she was not the "2 for the price of 1" pastor's wife. They explained to the congregation that although she supports her husband she also has her own calling. Congregation's view? No big deal.
Although the previous senior pastor's wife was a huge blessing who had a huge impact, she was a huge blessing because she wanted to be one. She chose to be involved. Frankly speaking we loved her because it was obvious that she never cared about her ranking, whether she was officially recognised or not. She was just there and she loved the congregation. She was a lovely and beautiful person with a big heart and she remembered everybody's name. Although her husband has retired and they moved overseas we still remember her with much fondness.
For the record, we like the new senior pastor's wife too - and her photo is not on the website but don't you worry the congregation knows who she is.
As for Bobbie Houston - shame on you guys. Her photo is on the website because she loves the church and she wants to be involved, and she and Brian worked together to build the Hillsong church since he started as a pastor. The members of the church would not want her to not be on the website. She is a big part of the church. She may not come across as a highbrow intellectual but she is a caring person who makes time even though thousands of people want to speak to her. Her family is on the website because guess what? They are involved too. Why? Because they choose to give.
I can't believe you waste your time comparing their photos. For the record Brian and Bobbie, Phil Pringle and wife are not supermodels but well groomed. It is not a crime. No one I know in the Charismatic churches and AOG churches knocks the Anglican clergy for how they look in their photos or their level of grooming. That it is even a consideration is frankly speaking ridiculous.
An anonymous female lay member not of the Anglican persuasion.
Anon- thanks for your comments, althought i think you are unfairly characterising the discussion. There are quite a number of different views here, so I am not sure who you are targetting.
Post a Comment