Draw the (Ministry) Circle Wider  

My friend had just started work as the pastor of a big Presbyterian church in a Canadian city. “When I was interviewed,” he told me, “I told the committee that, if they appointed me, I would want one day a week—not my day off—in which I could engage in ministry outside the walls of the church and outside the existing church community.” The committee were a little surprised, never having heard such a request before, but agreed. I was impressed by my friend’s commitment to ministry outside the walls—the sort of thing we would now call missional.   

I then didn’t see him for six months. When we next met, one of my first questions was, “So how is that one day a week going?” His answer stunned me: “What, one day a week?” I reminded him of our previous conversation. He shook his head sadly: “But there is so much to do inside the church.”  

Looking back, of course, he was right. His ordination was to a ministry of word and sacrament, teaching and pastoring—not evangelism and mission. And, of course, when you think about it, the New Testament does describe the gifts of pastor and evangelist as different things, ministries exercised by different people. We see this kind of distinction being made early in the Book of Acts, when the apostles decide they should not be involved in the distribution of food in the community, and appoint deacons to do it instead. It’s all to do with the diversity of the Body of Christ.  

Ministry after Christendom 

There was a period of several centuries when Christianity was dominant in Western societies. Monarchs were crowned in cathedrals by archbishops, British bishops sat (as they still do) in the House of Lords, and the parish church was at the heart of every community. That’s Christendom.  

Those days are past, and there is much to celebrate about its passing—as well as some things to grieve. But the way our ministry leadership is structured has not kept up with that reality. The Letter to the Ephesians lists the range of leadership gifts in the early church as “apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers.” A view common in the 16th century, a view that influenced the founders of the Anglican Church, was that the first three—apostles, prophets, and evangelists—were needed only in the first centuries of the Christian era, to spread the Gospel and plant churches. But by the 1500s, Christian faith was well-established across Europe, and all that was needed were pastors and teachers to “tend the flock.” Those other ministries could be forgotten.  

As a result, right up until the present day, the leadership gifts we honour most—with careful selection, professional training, episcopal ordination, and (usually) salaried employment—are priests who fulfil the role of “pastors and teachers.” And 90% of what seminaries do is to prepare people for that particular kind of traditional leadership. Of course, we still need pastors and teachers—and the church always will—but those are not the only leaders we need.  

Must the church “keep up with the times”? 

I don’t subscribe to the belief that the church has to be trendy and cool. Jesus was nothing of the kind! Indeed, it’s more accurate to say he was counter-cultural. Some witty person has said, “If the church is wedded to the culture of a particular age, she will be a widow in the next.” So, I’m not saying, “We must move with the times.” 

Nevertheless, it is true that, as the needs of the world change, the church’s response has to change if we are to continue to show the love of God in meaningful ways. And that means we will have to dig into our tradition to discover resources that have been neglected. In a post-Christendom age, those resources include the three leadership gifts neglected during the heyday of Christendom—those that involve preaching the Gospel where it is unknown and starting churches where there are none. In other words, ministry outside the existing church community and outside the four walls of the church building. 

Commissioned Lay Missioners 

The Church of England has more experience than we do here in Canada of shaping specialized ministries in response to post-Christendom realities, and this diocese—wisely, in my opinion—is seeking to adopt some of those new “missional” structures. One of these is the category of Commissioned Lay Missioner. (If you Google “Diocese of Niagara Missioners,” you will find more information.) 

This category is for people who are not specially gifted as “pastors and teachers” and would find it difficult or impossible to fulfill a priestly role. (It is not uncommon for such people to be turned down when they apply for ordination.) But what they are good at is ministry outside the church—a ministry to the “dechurched” (those who used to be in church but are so no longer) and the “unchurched” (the growing number who have never been part of any church). In general, such ministries have not been particularly valued in the church—we give more honour to those working within the existing church community—and certainly have not been officially recognized. But now that is changing.  

People who have a heart—and gifts—for this kind of ministry will be (a) commended by their parish priest, (b) interviewed by a selection panel, and (c) receive two years of specialized training. They will then be commissioned by the bishop for their new role—hence the Commissioned Lay Missioner. 

It’s an exciting new development, and other dioceses are already enquiring about it. Once again, the Diocese of Niagara is showing itself to be progressive as it pivots to respond to the needs of a post-Christian culture.