I have been thinking a lot lately about the lay ministry in the church. As I was growing up I was taught this was good. I have also heard it touted as one of the good things that make the church stand apart from other Christian denominations. I have begun to wonder, however, just how good it is for the church.
The best sermons I have ever heard came from a Baptist Minister in an isolated town in Northern Ontario. On my mission I served in his town, I tracted into many people who told me they would never miss a sermon preached by "Pastor Pat". So much so I became intrigued and went to one myself. I was amazed, I began going every Sunday, his services ended shortly before mine started, making for a great start to my Sunday. He also did a service every Sunday night where all they did was sing songs. Anyone could suggest a song, he would give a 30-45 second sermon on it, then all would sing it and someone else would suggest another one. Him and I became friends and would meet occasionally at a coffee shop and chat. I found out he had a triple combination and had read it cover to cover. (That made a lot of his sermons make more sense as many of them had a noticeable "mormon" slant). He told me many times his main goal was to bring souls to Christ, he only had a Baptist church because the Pastors before him paid an annual fee to call themselves Baptist and he continued to pay it, he said he has never used Baptist in a sermon and never would, it wasn't important. What was important was helping distracted people remember why they were here and what their goals should be.
Not only were Pastor Pat's sermons the best I have ever heard, there was not a single one that was not Spirit filled. This man had a vested interest, his entire life was wrapped up in learning the gospel and sharing it with others. When he took over the First Baptist Church, it had forty people a week that regularly attended and may get as many as double that on Christmas and Easter. When I met him (less than five years later) he had an average weekly attendance of 400.
I have met many people of whom I loved to hear them preach. A few (very few) of these people were mormons. I was conversing with my wife about this and bemoaning the fact that if I want to hear a good sermon, it is a better bet to go to one of the many other churches surrounding my own than to show up at a Sacrament Meeting. I remember the looks of disbelief my wife and I shared when we went to a Know Your Religion lecture and the conductor stated that it was the last season of KYR because 1) very few KYR circuits were making money and 2) we should be learning this stuff in Sacrament Meeting anyway. I had to stop myself from laughing out loud and we said almost simultaneously: That'll never happen.
I have begun to think lay ministry is more of a hindrance than a help, at least in our time. Here is my new view on lay ministry:
When you call someone to lead a ward (or stake) you have a couple things that happen;
1) They are distracted, they are most likely already juggling career and family responsibilities, no matter how hard they try, those two plus their new church responsibilities will all suffer.
2) It is very possible they will bring some secular (worldly) training into the day to day operations of the church. Business men will run it like a business, lawyers will run it like a practice, etc.
Not only do we have lay ministry leading the church, but the missionaries in charge of teaching people and helping them in their journey into the church are lay workers with little more than a couple weeks training.
We invited the missionaries over one Monday night not to long ago to teach a neighbor of ours whom we had been talking with. We were to have dinner then a lesson. The missionaries who serve our ward are zone leaders, so I expected much from them. Since it was Monday (their p-day) they had traveled to a neighboring town to play basketball with other elders, arriving 45 minutes late for our appointment. We had all eaten and were in the other room when they showed up. We gave them a few minutes to eat, then they commenced with the lesson. It was terrible. It did not flow at all, very choppy with tangents that took way to long and that they could not figure out how to tie back into the lesson. A couple times they had to ask me if I knew where a scripture was they wanted to read. They seemed to have no endgame in mind and did not know where to go next with what they were teaching or when to stop. It was hard for me to follow, and I knew what they were trying to say.
You may say I should not hold this one time against all missionaries in general...well, what about the time we invited the missionaries over for a Family Home Evening where we had some other ward members and some non-member family in attendance? Again they showed up late (after the whole FHE was over) grabbed some of the refreshments, then left apologizing but explaining they were very "busy" - even though we had set up the appointment over two weeks in advance...or what about the time we had a birthday party for my son at the park, again with many non-members and the missionaries showed up (late), ate cake, briefly talked to one non-member, then left. It would be pointless to go on, you get my point. With lay volunteers doing the work there is no vested interest. We like to tell ourselves they are vested, their testimonies make them so, but that is a pipe dream, not reality.
Not only is lay servicemen ineffective but it creates expectations among the ranks of the church. Again, back on my mission, I was tracting one day with an Assistant to the President who had come to work with me for the day. We rounded the corner and began walking up a long driveway to see a sprawling estate with a huge house in the center of large lawns and manicured gardens. The AP made the comment "these are the houses where stake presidents are found". Whether or not that is true, it proves the point that there are thoughts among rank and file church members that in order to have positions of prominence in the church you must be wealthy. Just like a bad credit score can prevent you from getting a good job, it can also stop you from moving up the ranks in the church.
My opinion has evolved to one where I think it is better for the congregation to support a minister. This makes him vested. It is in his best interest to make church enjoyable. In many churches if people don't like what they hear, they leave and go to another one. A minister who relies on his congregation for support cannot lose too many before he starts going hungry. The mormon church teaches you it is the one true church, the only way to get to heaven, then, since they've got you, they bore you to tears because they know you won't go anywhere else. How many stories have I read about people who left the church due to leadership? It is sad but I do not blame the leaders, they have lives at least as busy as mine, how are they suppose to dedicate the needed time to their congregations?
I met a minister once who was explaining to me the "Shepherds" he had assigned in his church. Basically, he had mimicked the home teaching program without knowing it. He explained there was too much going on for him to handle it all so he had picked out some of the best of the adult men and assigned them families to watch over, be their "shepherd" if you will. I followed up with him a couple times and early reports showed promising results. Showing that a good mixture of paid and lay ministry can benefit all.
I say leave the structure the same, just train, and support bishops and stake presidents in the same way as seminary teachers, general authorities, etc. Make them vested in making church enjoyable, we do not have to compromise any doctrines or any of the traditions that members seem to hold so dear.
