Kendall, it’s Wyoming; not Wisconsin.  Were you wishing something different for us Cheeseheads?

kb9gzg:
Perhaps cartography is not his strong suit.
wa6kko

Having observed “Mutual Ministry” play out in WY, I am not surprised at the tension. Ironically, in the WY scheme of things, a Mutual Ministry parish must pay 50% of its NDI to the diocese, and can expect very little from the diocese in return. “Mutual ministry” is simply a scheme for keeping churches open on Sunday - it has not succeeded that I am aware of in any place where it’s been put in place. On “Mutual Ministry” begins, ASA and revenues decline, and visits by clergy become less frequent. There is nothing substantive in the candidates’ response to suggest any meaningful future change in the practice of “Mutual Ministry” in WY.

So . . . is mutual ministry a different way of saying “mission parish,” or is there some particular approach to lay/licensed ministry with mutual ministry?

Said (asked) the non-Episcopal parson.

Mutual ministry can keep churches open after they no longer can support a full time rector or priest.  It is better than closing them down in rural areas where there would be no other Episcopal church within reasonable driving distance.  It is a way of supporting older members of a congregation to live out their lives in the church where they have spent many years worshipping and serving the Lord. It is just the decent thing to do if at all possible.

Actually mutual ministry is code-speak for “we recognize that your parish will not ever grow again and is in its death throes.  Rather than make it a mission of the diocese and invest time, talent and treasure into reviving it—which after all, your previous raving revisionist rectors which we foisted off on you did not do, oddly—we will “train” some cheap labor to escort you through the “gently rotating knives” on the conveyor belt.”

The moment a bishop begins mouthing the words “mutual ministry” it’s an acknowledgement that he’ll merely be “managing the decline.”

I give our bishop elect in Upper South Carolina 9 months from his consecration before he begins larding up his speech with those two delectable words of “mutual ministry.”  He simply won’t have a clue as to how to revive churches, since that’s not what he was elected to do.  He was, rather, elected to help make the revisionist clergy feel good while they are in the diocese.

Based on Sarah’s and Eugene’s descriptions, I have added another entry to the Briar Patch Dictonary:

Mutual Ministry (nounal phrase): An instance of a parish in hospice.

73, Bre_er!

The Methodists have a kinder/gentler way of doing this.  It’s called the licensed local pastor.  They’re even licensed to consecrate Communion, but only in their local church.  It’s all about the money - keep that little church open as long as they pay all their apportionments.  Being a licensed local pastor is akin to indentured servitude.  You get no health benefits.  You’re paid a part time salary, but are expected to be available 24/7.  You may or may not have a parsonage, but you are sure to get all the problems that come with a small, usually rural parish made up of people who say “our family has been going to this church for x generations.  We were here before you came and we’ll be here after you’re gone.”  Ah, the joys of the itinerant system!

Actually, these little country (usually) churches have some wonderful Christian people in them, but in general, they are some of the most difficult churches to pastor and provide young ministers with the scars of experience very quickly.

How’s this?  Your pastor is overpaid.  If we stopped thinking of your parson as a well-educated professional (which he/she is) and more like as servant of the people of God, then this wouldn’t be an issue.  In every parish that I was in, the rector was making A LOT more money than his parishoners.  Sorry, that doesn’t make the Jesus test.  When me and my priest are in line together at the food pantry, then I’ll know that I’m really with some fellow Christians.

Going by your different answers, mutual ministry means different things in fifferent places. And in the hands of some bishops, usually autocratic, it is a covenient way to ignore or sideline struggling congregations. However, raising local leadership (incl. locally ordained people) whether as pastoral or apostolic teams, or simply building up local leaders to proclaim the gospel, well, isn’t that a lot closer to Jesus’ model than a professional clergy, never envisioned in the NT? This one of those places where a Christendom model of ministry, i.e. mainly clerical, and an early church/post Christendom model differ. On the ground, here in a Canadian cluster, we experience both.

kb9gzg, I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall that Wisconsin and Wyoming are pretty much the same thing.  Lots of cows and snow and stuff, and they are both kind of out there and up a ways on the map. They even have the same NFL team (Minnesota Vikings, I think).

Hey, Trooper, I don’t know about your diocese, but having been vestry clerk at a parish here in CT, I can assure you that our rector was not overpaid.  Maybe he wasn’t picking up peanut butter and pasta at the local food bank, but there sure wasn’t alot of luxuriating in the finer things going on, and the missus shopped at consignment stores, not the upscale malls.

If the rector here in Ambridge didn’t have a second job he definitely would be picking up peanut butter and pasta at the local food bank.

What Rev. Smiley actually said (assuming he was quoted correctly):
“Rector-led congregations, while being important to the strength of the diocese and to the diocesan budget, have not received as much attention as Mutual Ministry congregations over the past decade,”

Living Church somehow interprets this to mean:
The Rev. John Sheridan Smylie, rector of St. Mark’s, Casper, described a sense that rector-led congregations receive more diocesan support than those that stress mutual ministry.

They are paraphrasing him as saying almost the polar opposite of what he actually said.

I have been a critic of mutual ministry for quite some time.  However, I do not want my remarks misconstrued as a personal criticism of those ordained this way.  Most I have met have a sincere desire to serve our Lord.  However, none that I have met to date is of the caliber of most seminary trained priests- they have not been given the tools.  Also, all that I have met to date see themselves as having little or no authority within the church, either as teachers or pastors.

Mutual ministry presents a series of problems-
1) The “ministry developer” is entirely beholden to the bishop, and vestries are reduced to being a finance committee devoted to paying money to the diocese.

2) Since the mutual ministry clergy receive so little training, and are at the mercy of the ministry developer, or the bishop who can remove their orders virtually on a whim, the bishop and ministry developers can exercise power in a way that would be impossible in a diocese with rector led congregations, and are in a position to impose their theology on the clergy.  The parish clergy here seem to have little more authority than I had as lay eucharistic minister (ie: chalice bearer) in my TEC days.” (see below)

3) Since ministry developers are chosen at the diocesan level without much if any parish input (at least the case here in N Michigan), they will be theologically in sync with the bishop and standing committee.  For an example of the damage that can do, review the history of N Michigan.

4) Small parishes are strong armed by the diocese into accepting mutual ministry, making the salary formerly paid to the rector available for diocesan contributions.  Take a look at the books of a mutual ministry parish to see what kind of percentages they pay the diocese in order to fund the ministry developers. 

5) Increasingly, these small dioceses are moving toward a situation where the only ordained minister with seminary training will be the bishop. 

*Note from 2 above:  Many people are confused over why I oppose “mutual ministry,” because in many places, the term means something entirely different than what in means in N Michigan or Wyoming.  In the diocese I was in 5 years ago, it meant laity assisting the priest at the altar, visiting and carrying communion the sick, or leading morning prayer.  In the more “modern” sense in places like N Michigan, it means selecting a large proportion of the parish (20% of the ASA in the local one), giving them a short course, and ordaining them as priests and deacons to carry out the sacramental functions of the parish.

Trooper-
Go to any rural or small town parish with an ASA under 100.  Or even some of the larger ones in blighted urban areas.  Nobody is in those parishes because of the big time salary.  It is true that some of the people who go into the priesthood have trust funds and such BEFORE they ever chose ministry, and they live the life to which they have become accustomed.  But your average priest ain’t getting rich (although I do know some who have parlayed a rector’s position AND a ministry developer position, and by double dipping, make a pretty good buck in a diocese that has the ASA of one healthy parish).
  There will always be some who abuse the system.  But even most of the revisionist clergy I know are doing it for some reason other than money.

Thanks for that correction of a most sloppy error on my part, tjmcmahon. I will fix that sentence momentarily.

#17-
Thanks.  And please forgive me for not using a more generous tone in my remark.

Anyone know if there is a mildly orthodox priest among the candidates?

tjmcmahon, as you know, N. Michigan was previously held up as the model of the year for mutual ministry. Busloads literally came to see what’s going on there in the days of Bishop Ray. Now its exactly what not to do. There are lessons here for all of us. I empathize with your sour feelings. Its like a once sober, sane friend gone rogue. What led to such outcomes? And how do we avoid the same mistakes? One factor I became aware of in TEC (I’m Canadian) is the penchant in the 80’s and 90’s for ordaining many people who had little or no specific responsibilities. Way too many clerical collars on way too many half trained people, who then thought they had licence to do as they wished. Too much hasty laying on of hands by progressive bishops who then titled their new proteges “special assistant to the bishop.” It still happens here, I’m afraid.
But the answer, IMHO, is not to revert to a pure professional clerical model, but much more careful selection and accountability of the locally ordained, with far fewer of them. And make them truly part of a local team. What say you all? Has a good model for mutual ministry emerged anywhere?

I do not have a problem with most of the intentions inherent in “Mutual Ministry” (as if it was supposed to be a new thing…).  My criticism comes when Total Ministry is not intrinsically and fundamentally connected to what happens, for instance, in the RCL Epistle for this coming Sunday (The Baptism of Jesus).