COLLEAGUES IN MARRIAGE AND MINISTRY

Linda McKiernan-Allen

And Ronald J. Allen

 

This article originally appeared in Women Ministers, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981, p.169-182.

 

Coming our of the penetrating February wind, we found ourselves engulfed in the soggy warmth of the hotel’s finest artificial tropics.  The sixty men and women milling around the chlorinated waterfall were clergy and spouses from the Nebraska Region of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).  It was the midwinter retreat, the first since our arrival in the area six months earlier.

            Friends greeted one another, and name tags were handed out.  As we pinned on the colored paper squares, one of the men asked, “Aren’t you that new couple up to Grand Island?”  Our affirmative response led immediately to the question, “How’s it working with both of you in the church?”  Asked in tones ranging from curious to skeptical, the inquiry was repeated a dozen times in the next twenty-four hours.  It is that way at most gatherings where we appear for the first time.

            Clergy and laity both want to see “behind the door.”  Our ministry is one instance of the phenomenon of clergy couples in the church, and in this chapter we try to indicate something of the connections between our marriage and ministry.

            A clergy couple is a woman and a man, married to one another, both theologically trained, ordained, and engaged in ministry.  Put more simply, it is two ministers who are married to each other.

            The Salvation Army has been ordaining husband and wife teams in the United States since 1880.[1]  Pentecostal churches have been ordaining women, some of whom have been part of clergy couples, since the early twentieth century.[2]  However, significant numbers of clergy couples have entered mainline Protestant denominations only since the early 1970s when women began enrolling in seminaries in significant numbers.  As the decade drew to a close, there were some 850 clergy couples in this group of denominations.  United Methodists had the largest number, with 300 couples, but the United Church of Christ and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) led in the number of clergy couples as a percentage of the total clergy.[3]

            Clergy couples, then, make up less than 1 percent of all ordained clergy in the United States, though if current trends continue, their numbers are expected to double by the mid-1980’s.[4] As might be expected of a new development, the majority of clergy couples tend to be young.  In a study done in the late 1970s, 85 percent of the women and 79 percent of the men were age thirty-nine or younger.[5]

            Clergy couples vary in the types of ministries performed, both by the individuals and among the couples themselves.  The type of ministry on which we are focusing is that in which both partners serve one congregation, each partner on a part-time basis.  Often each works half-time, thus making one full-time position.  We are employed three-quarters time each.

            This arrangement allows time for partners to pursue interests beyond the local ministry as well as to share home responsibilities.  Child rearing, caring for aged parents, and household chores can be handled in an egalitarian manner instead of according to traditional male and female roles.  In opting for this lifestyle, many clergy couples are involved in an experiment which holds real potential for a shift in our thinking about the nuclear family as well as the shape of the church’s ministry.[6]

            Most clergy couples who serve together are in an equal relationship as co-pastors.  In a few instances one is designated senior minister with the other as his or her associate.  It is, of course, difficult for some members of a local church to grasp the concept of two ministers who have equal responsibility, and they may persist in turning to the man as “the” minister.  Ironically, in our parish the members who had the most difficulty accepting the notion of co-ministry were the younger people.  The older members, who had grown up in a rural environment and observed their parents working together on the farm, were more easily able to transfer that sense of teamwork to the co-pastorate.

            Parishes of two or more churches can be served by clergy couples.  Sometimes these couples are co-pastors, but in other situations each member of the team is responsible for certain churches.  In other cases each is in pastoral ministry, but the two are in separate congregations.  This is a popular option when the individuals belong to separate denominations; it also works well when the two find it difficult to work together in the same congregation.

            A large number of clergy couples have separate ministries altogether.  One might be a chaplain and the other a local pastor.  In a few cases among clergy couples with a specialized focus, the two people share one position.  For instance, one denominational position or one teaching appointment may be divided between them.

            Clergy couples thus model dual career options for all families.  Such a model can be important to families that are in the midst of changing traditional role patterns.  When a parsonage family is successfully managing such an arrangement, other families can see how it works on a day-to-day basis.  In addition to being a model, the pastors can be trusted counselors on this issue.  And, happily, the opposite situation also holds true:  Families that have been managing two careers successfully, in many cases for years, can be instructive to the clergy couple.

            Our own pilgrimage began in April 1977, when the First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Grand Island, Nebraska, called us.  The story leading to the call actually began in the fall of 1976, as we worked together on our dossier.  That writing project gave us an opportunity for gut-level dialogue with one another about our ministry, forcing us to clarify what we thought, felt, hoped, and dreamed for our ministry.

            Despite the difficulty of two people trying to compose one autobiographical piece, we accomplished the job.  The one thing we agreed on, and which our dossier indicated unmistakably, was that we sought a position together.  In addition to the basic information, we included an addendum (titled “Our Shared Vision”) which described how we saw the nuts-and-bolts operation of our ministry.  We explained carefully that we wanted to work together, each being paid a separate salary.  Our specific talents were described, as well as how we saw those talents complementing one another to form a more complete ministry than most individual ministers could provide.

            We knew that in order to sell the idea of a two-minister family, we had to be clear about the potential advantage for the local congregation.  Further, throughout the dossier and the addendum we avoided the use of unfamiliar jargon (such as clergy couple, co-pastorate, or team ministry).  Instead, we wrote out what we meant, thereby clarifying the ideas for ourselves and for anyone who might read the material.

            We were fortunate to have personal relationships with our denominational officials who facilitate ministerial placement.  We discovered that while our national staff was very supportive of clergy couple ministry, many middle judicatory officials (regional ministers) were still a little foggy about the concept.  In our denomination it is the regional ministers who put dossiers into the hands of local pulpit committees, so we wanted the dossier to be a tool for their education as well as an introduction of us.

            When our interview at Grand Island was confirmed, we tried to imagine ourselves in the place of the pulpit committee.  What would they want to know?  We rightly anticipated that they would want to see how labor would be divided.  Handmade charts showing how we thought we would divide ministerial responsibilities gave the committee something concrete with which to work.  We drew freely from our reservoir of stories illustrating how successfully co-ministry was working elsewhere.

            An important pastoral concern of the committee was whether our marriage could withstand the mix with ministry.  We were glad to report that while few data are available, the divorce rate and the number of serious marital problems do not appear to be higher among  clergy couples than among the ordinary clergy population.  We explained that because of the small number of clergy couples and the newness of the concept, we often are watched with unusual curiosity.  So when a problem develops, it may appear to the outsider to be more important than it really is.

            After we met with the pulpit committee, led Sunday morning worship, and participated in a variety of meetings to get acquainted with the congregation, the church voted 228 to 1 to call us.  The one dissenter was concerned not about our role as a clergy couple, but about our youth. (We were both under thirty.)  In the congregational system of polity the regional and general church offices are strictly advisory and have no authority over placement; the congregation alone makes the final decision.  The problems of placement are different in an appointive system, such as the United Methodist Church.  There the responsibility of matching pastor and church belongs to the bishop and district superintendent.  Such officials often are concerned with the church’s potential difficulty in meeting its obligation of a guaranteed appointment when couples may want to serve in the same church or the same geographical area.

            Our agreement with the Grand Island church is based on one-and-a-half time employment divided equally between us.  We determine the elusive three-fourths as follows:  Each working day is divided into five modules of two hours each.  Each morning is two modules, each afternoon two, and each evening is normally one module.  A check with area clergy indicated that full-time employment is about forty-eight hours (or twenty-four modules) a week.  Three-quarters time would then be eighteen modules.  In practice our enthusiasm, occasional lack of organization, and unwillingness to say no often result in longer workweeks.

            It is often difficult to separate “work time” from “time off.”  Often we find ourselves talking over church business when working in the garden.  Dinner can become the occasion for replaying memorable encounters.  Social events with friends from the church often find us talking church business.

            But with this agreement we believe the ministry of First Christian Church may have more strengths than it would have with a single minister.  Two people are likely to have more strengths than a lone pastor and thus compensate for deficiencies.  In the same vein,  congregations which normally would have only one minister can have access to twice the program resources.  But we have to be careful, for with two energy cells it is easy to overprogram and leave both ourselves and the church weary.

            Two equal salaries, two health-care premiums (which are less expensive than a family policy), and equal pension fund deposits are included in our agreement.  We have separate offices in the church building and share one (often flustered) part-time secretary.  The following table compares expenditures for single minister and multiple staff situations with expenditures for clergy couples.  The major saving, of course, is in housing.

            The congregation has allowed us carte blanche as we have developed the shape of our ministry.  The previous ministry was carried on by one full-time minister, so the congregation did not have any experience with a two-person staff.

 

COST COMPARISONS (1979)
				Clergy		Clergy	Clergy
				Couple	2	Couple	Couple
			1	(1/2 time	Ministers	(3/4 time	(full time
			Minister	each)	(full time)	each)	each)
Salary			$12,000	$12,000	$24,000	$18,000	$24,000
Housing			4,000	4,000	8,000	4,000	4,000
Pension*			2,100	2,100	4,200	3,150	4,200
Car			2,000	2,000	4,000	3,000	4,000
Convention			500	500	1,000	750	1,000
Health care			1,000	1,000	2,000	1,000	1,000
Education			700	700	1,400	1,000	1,400
TOTAL			$22,300	$22,300	$44,600	$30,900	$39,600
*Pension deposit is calculated on 13 percent of salary and housing.

 

 

            Flexibility is a key to managing our relationship.  We have respect for each other and for what we each can and cannot do.  While there are always surprises and changes, we have something of an initial advantage over the normal ministerial team.  When the moving van pulls into the parking lot, the clergy couple already is operating at a high trust level, with built-in knowledge of each other’s strengths and weaknesses.

            We do not divide every task in half.  Because of our individual needs for a sense of accomplishment and the church’s need for continuity of leadership, one person follows a project from beginning to end.  Once Ron begins to prepare a sermon, Linda does not, without an invitation, try to change the thrust of it.  Once Linda has started a community project, Ron does not make uninvited suggestions about how to do it.  Rarely do we attend the same committee meetings.

            Separate responsibilities also mean that we do not spend all of our working time together.  We have regular hours in separate offices, and often we are calling at the same time but in different parts of town.  Only occasionally do we treat ourselves to making a call together.  Neither do we take all our time off together, for we each pursue our own interests. 

            In an unfortunate incident during our first week in Grand Island, we discovered that we individually had accepted dinner invitations from two different families on the same night.  On another notorious occasion, Linda was talking on the phone when Ron unceremoniously ripped the phone from her hands and in an energized voice began to “correct” the information Linda was passing along.  We have since learned not to speak for one another or embarrass each other.

            We also learned not only to live with but to celebrate our differences, both in theology and in our understanding of ministry.  Ron appreciates revivalistic and charismatic expressions of piety more than Linda, who is by nature more quiet and formal.  This occasionally causes tension in the relationship when Ron wants to sing gospel songs at the time Linda would put on the albs and bring in a crucifer.  Fortunately, both of our theologies, rooted in biblical experience and nourished by the notion of the greatness and grandeur of God, can embrace such far-flung differences.

            In fact, we now believe the congregation is enriched by such a varying diet.  Our congregation has three different kinds of worship offered at different times each Sunday:  A traditional Midwestern Protestant service (which one of our elders characterizes as “dignified informality”); a charismatic experience with the music projected on a screen and accompanied by handclapping, spontaneous expressions of praise, and occasional verbal punctuation; and a loose, spontaneous service with Avery and Marsh kinds of music, communion in the round, and pastor-congregation dialogue during the sermon.

            This pluralism does have its drawbacks.  Intentionally or unintentionally, some members try to get us to divide against ourselves.  Pluralism leads to power blocks, and sometimes we are the fulcrums on which these blocks work their leverage.  Still, in the language of Paul, we are “fellow workers in Christ” (Rom. 16:3).  We are visible and vocal each week in worship.  Normally, one preaches and reads Scripture while the other offers the pastoral prayer, introduces communion, tells a children’s story, and works  with the lay worship leader.

            Variation in styles of preaching and worship leadership are refreshing for the congregation.  Furthermore, with a regular break in preaching, we have time for reading and reflection, which are important for fresh preaching.  The week-by-week presence of a colleague as a critic helps.  Rona has a Ph.D. with an interdisciplinary focus in preaching.  While both of us think of him as the stronger and more consistent preacher and interpreter of Scripture, the congregation does not share the discrimination.  Indeed, they respond to us as equals in the pulpit.  Linda brings a stronger social conscience and the courage and sensitivity necessary to express it.  Our preaching is thus better balanced than if only one of us were in the pulpit.

            Generally, the congregation’s response to our co-ministry has been positive, with both men and women expressing appreciation for the coordination of the services and team-work.  We each baptize and welcome new members.  We are team workers in program as well.  We have separate committee responsibilities, which are assigned according to ability and interest as follows:

 

 

 

DIVISION OF LABOR

                 Ron                                  Joint Responsibility                             Linda

 

         Evangelism                                  Worship                                   Community action

        Membership                                 Education                                    World outreach

           Property                           Pastor-parish relations                             Stewardship

 

            We each do about half of the pastoral calling on members and shut-ins; Linda does most of the hospital visitation, and Ron concentrates on evangelism.  Funeral services and weddings are handled by whoever answers the phone unless the family has a particular request.  In emergency situations we are twice as available as a single minister because we can be in two places at once.

            Counseling appointments are accepted by both, usually at the request of the counselee.  Often we work together in pre-marital and marriage counseling.  Counseling alternatives are broadened as members of the congregation and community are given choices according to personality and sex.  Both women and men appreciate the possibility of working with a “same gender” counselor at one point and “cross gender” or “joint gender” at another.

            For special events we agree on responsibility on the basis of interest, time available, and ability.  Sometimes we have to fight for the “plum” jobs.  We have been trained jointly to lead marriage communication labs.  Ron oversees an annual week of renewal, while Linda is involved with the CROP walk and Church World Service.

            By working three-quarters time, we are able to devote significant amounts of time and energy to personal projects.  Ron writes, tries to keep afloat in the shifting tides of New Testament research and preaching, and is available for free-lance Bible study leadership.  Linda works with the regional and general levels of the church and enjoys creative aspects of homemaking.  These activities enrich the life of the congregation without robbing it of pastoral leadership.

            An important fixed event in our week is the Monday morning staff meeting.  Because we count on at least an hour of time together, focused on our work, many small irritations and concerns can then be aired without interrupting the flow of the week.  Of course, some bombshells must be dealt with when they explode, but many others can be stored and vented later.  That staff meeting helps curb the 11 p.m. bedside staff meetings.  It also clarifies responsibilities and direction for the week.  Inevitably we come away encouraged and renewed; we feel that we are working together for the common good.

            There are, of course, problem areas.  It can be difficult for each of us to maintain his or her identity.  Some members see not Ron and Li8nda but “the kids.”  Calls are frequently concluded with the parishioner saying, “Next time, please bring your husband (or wife).” Mistakes and successes are occasionally attributed not to the individual who is responsible but to the team.

            Believe it or not, we can have too much togetherness.  Sometimes it seems as though we are together everywhere but in the bathroom.

            Occasionally, competition gets in the way of ministry.  Each morning we swim or run at the YMCA and record our mileage.  We race to see who can reach the Five Hundred Mile Club first and have even been known to double-check the other’s addition.

When this friendly sense of competition is transferred to a church program or sermon, we sometimes find ourselves pushing our individual interests as if God has a giant chart in the sky on which points are recorded.  Awareness of this tendency enables us to relieve each other by chiding or confrontation.

            Another problem comes when the church does not know how to express dissatisfacti0on with one partner’s performance.  Sometimes the fear of damaging the clergy couple’s marriage inhibits parishioners from making an appropriate criticism of one partner’s ministry.  On the other side, each of us must sometimes tolerate what seems to be the inferior ministry.  On the other side, each of us must sometimes tolerate what seems to be the inferior ministry of the other.  How do you look interested when your partner preaches a sermon that needs another day or two in the study?  At the same time, we are sometimes unable to separate criticism of one from criticism of the other.  Un-necessary pain results.

            Such occasions can present an opportunity to model conflict management for the congregation.  We do not try unnecessarily to hide our disagreements and disappointments from the congregation, though we do not wear them like ribbons either.  We try to share our differences with one another and with boards and committees in situations which allow for free expression and growth, avoiding win-lose situations.  We demonstrate in our own lives that a difference of opinion does not mean that someone must put his or her Bible on the shelf and go home.

            Because of our common commitment to marriage and ministry, we enjoy wholeness of life.  Our lives are cut from one piece of colorful fabric.  Though there can be confusion between home and work, mutual understanding of the sources of tension and pain leads to strength in resolving them.  We are open with each other in a way which is sometimes difficult for conventional colleagues, especially those in hierarchial situations, to understand.  At the same time, there are confidences that must be respected and not shared even with our partner.

            We are free to work with each other when inspired.  Few others would feel free to call a colleague when an idea sparks at 2 a.m.  While Linda has serious questions about the contribution Ron makes at that hour, she can feed her own enthusiasm by rolling him around in bed with, “Look at this!”  He, on the other hand, can have a new thought at 6 a.m. and find someone who will at least say, “Go to it.”

            Most of our conversations about our ministry, with both laity and clergy, center on the practical side.  An older member of the congregation was the first to put us on the firing line.  “I don’t remember reading about any of these clergy couples in the Bible.  Are you sure it’s all right?”  Asked in more and less sophisticated ways by a variety of questioners, the query often is a cover for underlying insecurity about the place of women in ministry and about the relationship of husbands and wives.  Our experience has been that such hesitation usually is caused by a lack of exposure.  But some people have a deep-seated theological anxiety  which needs to be taken seriously.

            We frankly admitted to the woman who confronted us that the Old Testament contains few, if any, examples of husbands and wives sharing leadership of the people of God.  There were no women priests, although there are instances of charismatically inspired women rising to the pinnacle of leadership.

            In turning to the New Testament, we pointed out that while there were no husband-wife teams among the twelve apostles, there were women who, breaking with commonly accepted Jewish practice of the time, not only followed Jesus but supported him and the twelve financially (Luke 8: 1-3, 10: 38-42; Mark 13:10).

            We stressed that both men and women were leaders in the early church and that there are several instances of men and women sharing leadership. Among the first of such couples were Priscilla and Aquila (Rom. 16.3-5; 1 Cor. 16.19). Luke depicts the couples as missionaries with Paul (Acts 18.1-3) who jointly instructed Apollos (Acts 18.26).

            In Paul’s time, most churches met in homes, and it is likely that many were headed by husbands and wives working together. Paul mentions the following by name: Andronicus and Junias (if “Junias” is feminine, Rom. 16.7), Philologus and Julia (Rom. 16.15), Philemon and Apphia (Philem. 1.2). Though admittedly there is scant information about how the spouses shared labor and leadership, it is noteworthy that women and men, working together, are acknowledged as leaders of the household of faith.

            Those who object to the ministry of clergy couples on biblical grounds usually cite the household codes of Ephesians 5.21-32; Colossians 3.18-4.1; 1 Peter 3.1-7; the instructions to the overenthusiastic woman in 1 Corinthians 14.33b-36; or the insistence that women are not mentioned among the leadership of the churches in 1 Timothy 3.1-13 or Titus 1.5-16. These and related questions have been dealt with by responsible interpreters on Scripture on behalf of the women’s movement. In dealing with lay people and suspicious pastors, we have found it inadequate to bring our Galatians 3.28 (“… there is neither male nor female…”), followed by statement like “Things were different then.” It is confusing to suggest that 1 Corinthians 14.33b-36 may not have been written by Paul. In any case, that approach does not touch the problem of the text’s meaning for today, since those verses are in the canon whether or not they were written by Paul.

            We have found that genuine dialogue can be opened as we discuss the historical context of the churches to which the passages were written. It is natural to point out thtat women were in position s of leadership in the early church and are remembered as the first witnesses of the Resurrection.

            When women are in visible positions of leadership in our society, it says to the world: “In this church women are first class.” Having both women and men share leadership provides an inclusive view of the nature of God. Recent studies have pointed out feminine images of the divine. These hitherto neglected themes are an important corrective to the dominant (and often damaging) picture of God as patriarch. Here, as elsewhere, clergy couples may provide the occasion for fresh, more adequate ways of thinking and working in the church.

            While our ministry in Grand Island provides both the church and us with rich opportunities, there may come a time when our work is no longer effective or when another call offers challenges that seem appropriate to our continuing growth. But it may be more complicated for us to leave than it was to come. One of us may be ready to move (possibly into another form of ministry) while the other wishes to remain. The church may want one of us to leave but the other to continue. We both might sense that our productivity has ended but be unable to locate another position in which we can share marriage and ministry.

            While there are questions prior to coming, during a ministry, and facing a move, the most important thing for us is the joy of continuing to work with the one we love. In ordained ministry and marriage two signs of God’s grace stand side by side in Christian community.