I once went to a so-called Mega-Church for a funeral. In the back of the auditorium (it ain't no church) was an ATM. Need I say more?

Is it Kosher?

I belong to THE largest mega church on the face of the earth

In the fine-print of the article it becomes (my emphasis): "5 Reasons You Shouldn’t Blindly Copy a Mega-Church"

Which might seem like caviling on my part but, in talking with converts who were former mega-church attendees, the dirty little secret is that mega-churches are revolving doors. This is because they tend to deliver emotional highs rather than formation and worship.

All good things, but...Priests who are willing to work could be added to the list. I have met some like that and they are treasures. I have also met the kind that are lazy, spoiled, over-indulged, and looking forward to their next vacation in expensive places more than in serving the parish. The megachurches have an easier time getting rid of incompetent leaders.

Re number 2: I do not think it is the role itself that it is the issue, but priests allowing them to get out of hand and to what is contrary to the mind of the church. We see the same thing in music circles. People not following proper protocol and the guides provided.

The fact of the matter is that priests cannot do everything that is expected of them, they need to take at least the line of thinking of the early church i.e. inviting more men (even married men) to the diaconate and open the ministry of acolyte again.

I have not met a real youth minister in my side of the world, here priests try to do it all where possible. They are struggling.

Good observation. How do we correct the error?

Unfortunately correcting this problem is only possible if they admit that there is a problem and application will vary from place to place and person to person.

When I was a Baptist it was simpler. They already knew what was expected because they were trained for ministry and and the pastor was very no-nonsense about everything and his expectations were high.

We were lucky to have a very firm pastor that was willing to be unpopular to put his no nonsense approach to work. Ironically he was extremely popular for the very reason - people knew where they stood - the goal posts never moved.

I feel that many priests are trying to please every one and end up not keeping their commitments because of this. Others want to be in charge of everything and do everything badly.

So possibly if these ministers were trained, knew exactly what was expected of them, were put to work and high standards were expected i.e. real results, there should be no problem. I have seen it work, so I have no doubt it can be done, and done well.

Possible solution:

1.First and foremost pray. Does the parish need this ministry and are you fit (or at least qualified) to serve in it or be a leader?

2. Priest or team leader must have firm goals in place which the team agrees to. This must conform to any church document that may address the end of the ministry.

3. Proper training for your ministry and commitment to obedience to your superior whether priest or team leader would be required

4. Do work required swiftly and to the best of your ability with a sense of charity. Understand that you are in the process of assisting in your salvation as well as the salvation of others.

5.Do not move the goal posts! Unless it is agreed on by all involved and for good reason.

6. Rinse and repeat

7. Pray some more

Haha, I do agree with you there. Words can really make a difference, possibly return to the use of the word apostolate ministry and servant instead of minister or something similar?

The 1997 document "On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest" calls for appropriate terminology; it acknowledges that the Church has been using the term "extraordinary minister" to refer to certain lay tasks delegated by priests, but in general, the term "ministry", in its full sense, refers only to the duties exercised by Pastors, based on the sacrament of Orders.

Proper training for your ministry and commitment to obedience to your superior whether priest or team leader would be required

I'll bite. Proper training must mean imbibing the proper Spirit of the Liturgy. If you serve as a lector, and you're not an instituted lector, recognize that your duty isn't to do a dramatic presentation. Chant the appointed Scripture pericope straightforwardly. If you're an instituted Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion -- and properly understand your responsibilities -- pray for an increase of vocations, so that your service in this capacity is no longer perceived as necessary. If you're a member of the choir, remember first and foremost that you are the servant of the liturgy of the Church, not its master, because you are there to worship God, not be worshipped.

[Ducking and covering]

The document Co-Workers in the Vineyard of the Lord: A Resource for Guiding the Development of Lay Ecclesial Ministry was developed by the Committee on the Laity of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). It was approved by the full body of bishops at its November 2005 General Meeting.

http://www.usccb.org/about/laity-marriage-family-life-and-youth/lay-ecclesial-ministry/

What's a better term for the activity of lay church workers (including volunteers)?

Not so fast.

(1) The scope of what is called "lay ecclesial ministry" is broader than you might realize. This is not only about lay people who collaborate in the liturgy: there are also people working in catechesis and in family-related activities such as marriage prep, bereavement assistance, annulment counseling, etc.

(2) Even terms like "altar boys", "altar ladies", etc., do not indicate what these people do, so they are not very clear terms.

(3) But proposing to name all the types of activity separately is dodging the point. If you object to the term "lay ecclesial ministry" -- which certainly is jargon -- you could at least try to offer a drop-in replacement for it.

Bill,

Father, Son and Holy Ghost aren't descriptions of what the persons of the Trinity do, either, and neither are priest, deacon, subdeacon........ So the desire (however valid) to have a description of what the people do is not actually necessary, or necessarily desirable. Additionally, "ministry" doesn't actually tell us what some person does -- since it's a catch-all term. To anticipate the objection, though, I'll observe that chemical engineers and mechanical engineers aren't engineers in the same sense that janitorial engineers and social engineers are.

Jackson,

I am not used to seeing jargon-riddled sentences from you, so I'm going to respond to

the reactionary and ultra-clerical objections

as if it weren't in purple.

To address the problem, one must understand that the purpose of the very-broad expansion of the word "ministry" is precisely to engage in "me-too"ism -- to insist that there's nothing actually special about the ordained priesthood. It is much the same reason that one must avoid (nowadays) perfectly good words such as stewardess, actress, policeman, chairman (even in all-male organizations).

The lay vocation is distinct from the ordained vocation. To clericalize everyone (or, at least, to treat everyone as if he is a cleric is, it seems to me, a much worse kind of clericalism than reserving the word ministry to describe one facet of the priesthood.

At the level of language, we know that it is natural that language change and develop in some ways, but not in others. The word "love", like the word "ministry" is coming into such overuse that it is being deprived of the force which language should have.

"Reactionary" is a term usually reserved for "backward-looking" movements or philosophies, with the express purpose of depriving the person advancing the "reactionary" point of any legitimacy in an argument. When the speaker perceives a good thing, we call it contrition, repentance, maturity. I submit that the overuse of the word ministry is an act from which one can and should, rightly, repent--- even allowing that it isn't matter for the confessional.

.

!

Charles,

I completely agree that "pastoral" is overused! Is this the second time in 12 months I've completely agreed with you? Wow. Maybe it will be a more common occurrence?

Cheers,

Chris

"Pastoral" is usually contrasted with "doctrinal". We want a pastoral pope because we want doctrine to change. We don't need a doctrinaire pastor, but a pastoral one. Pastoral musicians almost universally facilitate pastorally sensitive, inclusive music.

My 2 cents on some of the more (but not most-) recent comments will simply be that I abhor being called a music minister (and I think people need to seriously rethink giving people the title of THE Minister of Music).
It's as though the one using the term is trying to make me feel (extra) good about myself, and I always wonder - but why is that necessary? "What are you really thinking?"

In a word, it simply feels patronizing. I'm not a minister. As a Catholic female I would never, ever have even considered setting out to be any type of "minister." Why would I want that title - why would anyone who isn't part of the clergy want that title?

It's as though the one using the term is trying to make me feel (extra) good about myself, and I always wonder - but why is that necessary? "What are you really thinking?"

That maybe you will feel good about your position and we wont have to pay you a just wage?

Anytime music is made, it must be a performance. Period. Music is a performing art, and anytime that musicians make music, it is, in fact, a performance. There is so much commentary on "we don't want it to seem like a performance," etc., in the modern church, but that is not the reality when it comes to making music. This is why the soloist and congregation model doesn't work: it's only a performance for the soloist. In that respect, since it is a performance for the soloist, the congregation can safely sit back and listen, and not "participate." (that word is overused these days, don't you think?) Towards that notion: I think the reason that congregational hymn singing works better for the Protestants is twofold: 1. It is clearly their tradition, begun in opposition to the schola dominated chant tradition of the Catholic Church, and 2. They just used music that people already knew when their sects were formed: they didn't invent new hymns in a vacuum and then have to teach them to congregations, who were oh-so-eager to learn them. Short version: their congregations were already singing when they formed the sect so there wasn't really any forcing involved. Although this is a digression and I will return to the topic at hand, the Catholic Church never wanted the type of soloist dominated hymn singing that we are trying for today. In the reform movement of the 20s and before, the emphasis was on congregations singing chant, which is the tradition of the Catholic Church. The Church even recognized, as has been mentioned before on this forum, that the congregations wouldn't be singing the Proper of the Mass, as it would be too difficult and would remain the domain of the schola. I think the true desire was for them to make the sung responses with the schola, "et cum spiritu tuo," etc, and to sing the Ordinary when possible.

I agree with MBW above: the title of Director makes you an expert that must be respected, whereas the title of minister makes you a servant. Not a servant to God or the Church, a servant to the Pastor and whoever is influencing him. Director of Music Ministries is even more ambiguous because it implies that you have the expertise, but you will still be serving the Pastor (and those who influence him) primarily. It still means you won't be respected for the expert and artist you are.