Hi, Dave.

I completely agree that there is something very healthy about being called to service rather than status.  And your focus in lifelong learning is great.  Thank you.

However, I think a significant issue for Ministry Associates is that--at least so far as I know--they are not eligible for the Ministers Pension Fund, nor are their congregations required by the Church Order to provide them with health insurance.

These forms of  "honor" would greatly reduce the "Rodney Dangerfield" syndrome.    I think one of the best ways we can honor those who serve is by providing them with decent benefits.

Perhaps there is some movement afoot in this area.  Can you comment?

Dave H.

Thanks Dave for your quick input.  I'm hoping we can get a good conversation going here.

As you invite my input re "honor" for ministry associates via benefits and pension, the truth is that the denomination does have a pension plan that ministry associates are eligible for (it is a "defined contribution" plan rather than a "defined benefit plan", which in the minid of many is preferable these days)  There is also a health insurance plan they can qualify for.  The reality is that both ministry associates and ministers of the Word need to negotiate these plans with their "employing church" or agency -- it used to be that denominational rules made this automatic, but no longer.  

You, and others "participating"  in this conversation might be interested in looking at the "Ministry Associate Handbook" , which is on the CRCNA web site, the Candidacy Committee page.  Go to www.crcna.org/candidacy   In that booklet a number of these "honoring" issues, and other nuts and bolts issues of the office, are addressed.

The problem is, of course, that the CRC culture has not caught up with the "reality" of  ministry associate regarding issues (or issues for honoring ministers of the Word, for that matter).  Here is where, in my mind, we need to get our heads together.  

I'm delighted to hear that some substantial work has already been done in the area of benefits.  That's great.  Thanks for the information. 

When i was ordained it was as an Evangelist, not a Ministry Associate, and I was sent to Tucson for the purpose of planting a church. A dozen years later God has provided a self sustaining church that also owns its own building in the heart of Tucson. Numerous people have come to Christ and many others have found healing and renewal in our small community. I came to this joyous task of ministry later in life and could not afford a seminary education which I would now love to have.

At my ordination I was told that my office was equal in honor, differing only in task to that of Minister of the World. Years later I can't imagine what I do that is different from someone who has received an advanced degree. I preach, teach, evangelize, lead worship, counsel, and run the business and administrative elements required to purchase and maintain a building and to do the ministry itself. That said, I am sure that those with seminary education are often better equipped and more capable in the various tasks. I also have the privilege of serving the denomination as president of the Board of Home Missions as well as serving on the Regional Home Mission's Team, the Home Missions Committee of Classis Arizona and directing a church planting effort here in Tucson called the Tucson Cluster. I am indeed privileged to serve in these areas. I am honored to be able to do so. I would gladly do these thing without title or recognition which seems odd to say when I am posting these things here. My point is not to draw credit or glory as all of that belongs to God. My point is that the church is called to honor those who work hard among them. Ministry Associates that I know do work hard and the church has most often failed to honor them in the way that it says it will when it ordains them. There work is often ignored. A man I know labored for many years as an Evangelist and did marvelous work and when he died there was no mention of him in the Banner or any recognition beyond the folks that he faithfully ministered to. Comments I hear include being regularly told that I should apply for article 7 status so that I can be a 'real pastor'. My response has been to say that I love being an evangelist and have no desire to grow up to be a 'real pastor'. I have been told that I preach well for someone who is 'only a Ministry Associate'. I have been told that I am not eligible for such things as Lily Grant sabbaticals or to be part of certain peer groups that are designated for only those who have graduated from an approved seminary.  And, of course, if the other pension plan is so much better, why aren't we inviting all new seminary grads to be a part of it? One reason is that it is called the Unordained Workers Plan, if I recall correctly. Or have we renamed it? Anyway, when i was ordained as an Evangelist I was invited to join the unordained plan specifically created for the unordained. I found that wonderfully amusing. All said, I understand the rules and I wish to highly honor the theologians among us who have completed that wonderful training. Scripture, however, does not invite us to honor those who are formally educated among us, but only those who work hard. Those I know who graduate from seminaries do work hard and build the Kingdom and should be richly honored for doing so, so that their work is not additionally burdened by the cares of this world.

The easy way to solve the problem, I think, is to stop telling people they will be equal in honor. We can set up a two tier system that allows those with advanced degrees to be differently honored than those who fail to acheive that certification. That way we can honor those who lead worship, minister to youth and children, provide counseling ministries and all the other tasks that have been lumped under the Ministry Associate banner in lesser, but good ways. My longing is simply that our words match our actions. If we are going to equally honor than we should do so. If we don't want to do that, then let's create a different system and apologize to those we have wronged.

As for me, I think I am willing to give my title back. Thirteen years ago it was a precious way for the broader church to recognize my passion to reach people for Christ and a huge encouragement to me that God had indeed called me to leave the business world and go plant a church. Now days, the people in my community mostly call me Rod or Pastor Rod. They do so with great respect and love. They honor me by taking care of my needs and by bringing gospel to their friends. I have never had to show my ordination card to conduct a wedding or visit someone in prison or in the hospital. The only place it seems the title matters is when I move outside my local community into the broader CRC community. Since the Ministry Associate title doesn't travel to other classes, it really doesn't matter even if I want to leave Tucson for somewhere else. And I don't want to leave. I love pastoring my community and helping others, both Ministers of the Word and Ministry Associates start new works here in Tucson where we are among the least churched cities in North America. Besides, you don't really need a title to share the gospel. :)

Rod, you say so nicely, and so much better, with so much more diplomacy, what is true regarding this issue than I ever do.   And I appreciate that.  But bottom line is that the difference between what the church order says about equal honor, and what it does in terms of paying attention to the offices, is inconsistent and contradictory.   And this inconsistency plays out not only in the treatment of ministerial associates and evangelists, but also in the treatment of elders and deacons.   It is a huge inconsistency, and it is hypocritical.   While elders bear some of the blame for this, it is largely the "ministers of the word" who are responsible for the hypocrisy and inconsistency and protectionism.   I think they have generally improved over the last twenty years in this regard, but there are still tendencies to perpetuate this inconsistency.   I recently noted two alternate forms for ordination for ministers in the back of the hymnal, and I believe the second one, being 6.5 pages long, and being newer (I believe) is another indication of this inconsistency, when compared to the form for evangelist or the form combined for elders and deacons.   There is no way that the denomination can claim it is following the church order on this point.  The church order doesn't even follow itself. 

Re-reading your original comment/request, I gave it some more thought, David Koll.   And I thought you have provided an excellent synopsis of the difficulties of title. 

So to your proposition 1.:   I looked at scripture.  Typed in "Peter".   And I did not find a case where Peter was addressed as, pastor Peter or apostle Peter.   Sometimes, it was, "Peter, the apostle",  or "Peter, an apostle",  but even this was rare.   I doubt there was less respect because of this lack of title.   Nor would the formalized or reluctant use of it denote respect where it was not due.   I'm reminded where Jesus says to call no one father because God is our Father only.   Implying that title and honor belong to God alone.   

Proposition 2:   It would good to remember that the same difficulties that occur in the use of honorific titles apply to elders and deacons, and indeed to christian brethren.   How often do you hear people call each other "brother Dave" or "brother John" in the christian context?   Do we commonly refer to "elder Jack" or "deacon Jake" when we address each other?   So why would it be surprising that we do not address as often in conversation "pastor Dave" or "preacher Ron" or "servant John"?  

Proposition 3:    If you stop learning, pinch yourself, because you are probably dead.