Question about how to describe different approaches to ministry

[NonCatholicInCatholicSchool]

What vocabulary am I looking for here?

We are church musicians from an atheist/humanist background who have been singing in Anglican and Presbyterian choirs for the last 30+ years. So, while we have spent a fair bit of time participating in liturgy as musicians, we don't have the knowledge that comes with e.g. having attended Sunday school and really knowing what's going on.

The church where my son plays the organ and sings, (one of the ones where we sing), is currently looking for a new minister.

The previous minister was extraordinarily kind, welcoming, always had a good word and time to chat to anyone. He really seemed to embody Jesus' teachings, and put a very strong emphasis on understanding the texts for each week in his sermons, and where that understanding should take everyone in their everyday life, delivering a cut-down version of the lesson to the children as well. He is a university academic theologian and clearly understood the detailed historical context of each lesson, where it had come from in terms of ideas about belief 2000+ years ago, quirks of biblical translations and interpretations, as well as taking this understanding and applying it to 21st-century life.

On top of this, he appreciated and always acknowledged the collective efforts of all the people contributing to the church's life, from the cleaner, to the flower arranger, the gardening team, the people on the tea roster, the welcoming team, the organist and choir, to the people helping with communion or running the post-service lunch/ youth group/ group walk or whatever. My son has always particularly appreciated the fact the minister always had something intelligent to say in the sermon or the children's lesson, about any programmed music (he clearly went to the effort of looking up composers and pieces, despite not being a musician).

Is there a term to describe a minister like this? Theologically informed, emphasis on what to do with the knowledge, emphasis on community and welcoming. Absolutely zero emphasis on specifics of belief and individual statements of committment to faith.

The minister who looks likely to be appointed as his replacement is quite different. He has visited multiple times in the months since the previous one retired. His emphasis is very much on personal statements of belief in God's love, wanting people to come to Jesus with him, wanting belief so they can be with God in the afterlife, wanting the children to say why they love Jesus specifically, in front of the congregation (good luck with that, with a bunch of choristers who have no idea what's going on). His sermons often have little to no connection to the readings, and are always centred around his idea of how ministry should be done, which seems mostly to be going into schools and the university and handing out lollies while telling people the good news about Jesus. In these months he has criticised the choir and organists, gardeners, flower arrangers etc many times for only being interested in their own hobbies - they're too proud, apparently, and he doesn't believe in their faith unless he sees them out evangelising with him.

So, he seems very concerned with every individual professing faith and spreading the word. Not concerned at all with getting people on board unless they share his views, and quite happy to antagonise the congregation for being insufficiently faithful, specifically unwelcoming to anyone not fitting his ideas. No emphasis on theology at all.

These are obviously quite different versions of how to be a Presbyterian minister.

If I wanted to describe, or read about, which path I'd like to take, what vocabulary would I use? Are there specific branches of the church that favour one approach over the other?

Sounds like the new guy is an evangelist who needs some guidance/more experience at integrating into a new church. The old minister sounds like he had more of a gifting in teaching and in the pastoral side of things.
People are all different and there are benefits and disadvantages for both styles.

The first minister, if he didn't preach about the saving power of the blood of Jesus, how we need to repent of our sins, then he wasn't preaching the gospel. After all, that's what church should be about, gaining more disciples for Jesus, and teaching them the scriptures. The rest is fellowship, worship etc, all good, but without the central message of the gospel, it's all for nothing as people won't be saved. You didn't say whether he did that but if not, no matter how nice everything else is, it's a dead church.

The second minister also sounds less than idea as from your description he is making it about himself. Theology is very, very important and needs to be taught to the congregation, as well as demonstrating it yourself as the leader of the flock. Evangelism is all well and good but people won't go out to do that if they don't understand the basics themselves by being taught, and encouraged, not pushed to do it.

My concern regarding the first 'expression' of church is that anyone who is in a position of leadership should be born again. How can anyone, a musician or a singer, lead the people into worshipping the Lord if they themselves do not know Him in Spirit and in Truth? I have attended churches like that and it feels more of a personal performance from the front/stage, rather than the sole purpose being to draw Him close. From what you say, the minister was great in encouraging people in their 'talent' but from you have said there was not much in what @GentleSheep talked of: the saving power of the blood of Jesus, how we need to repent of our sins.

Regarding the second minister, I concur with @GentleSheep . Not everyone is equipped to be an Evangelist, especially if they have not yet fully grasped Scripture. Also, as @Geneticsbunny alluded to, people are different. Ministers will come to ministry using their own unique personalities and styles. God made us uniquely ourselves for a reason. It's not helpful to be critical of one over another.

I’m Anglican but the first minister sounds very pastoral. The second one is very Protestant but this is a Presbyterian church. As an experienced minister I’m hearing a lack of pastoral skills, communication and people skills. How does he manage change and conflict ? How does he plan to pay the church’s gas bill if he doesn’t have the skills to get people onboard? What is his vision and how does he plan to achieve it? Where are the elders or trustees in all of this?

I've been in churches under very different ministers.

I can think of one who would admit he had foot in mouth issues. He wasn't too bad when it came down to it at pastoral but he'd often ask others to either come with him or, when appropriate, take over, as that wasn't his forte. He was a fantastic leader, great innovator and preached a very good sermon.

I also have known a minister who was brilliant pastorally. Always there, people loved him. However I can also remember the sermon he gave up halfway through, announced he had a cracker of a hangover and left. People still loved him... even if his sermons were not very well prepared and thought out.

It sounds to me like you are potentially getting ready to give the new minister a hard time simply because he isn't the old minister and has different gifts. Work with him, find out what his gifts are and support where he needs help.

There is a tendency when you're looking for a new minister to look at all the gifts the current one has, and want all of that. Then look at all the places where the current one is lacking, and want the new minister to have those too. As one person put it in our church "you're asking for a five-legged sheep".

@MargaretThursday you make a very good set of points here (as do the others, sorry I haven't been back, life has been getting in the way).

The thing is, we are there for a very specific set of reasons/circumstances, which the old minister definitely spoke to in many ways, and which the new/visiting minister doesn't speak to at all. So in the end, there may just be no place for us (and indeed most of the musicians) in this church if this new minister takes over. Which is sad, because we love the community, we love contributing to it in a way that makes people happy, and we are now good friends with many of the congregation.

We're humanists, so we valued the approach taken in the old minister's sermons, making the Gospel relevant to everyone there. Yes, he did mention salvation (and yes, that's kind of the point), but he went out of his way to not press people about personal beliefs or precisely what those looked like, and to make the sermon relevant to anyone listening, no matter what their beliefs. The new guy very definitely has a very specific view on what belief is supposed to look like, and assumes that everyone listening to him has exactly that style of belief. His sermons and children's lessons are ineffective at teaching the gospel or its relevance to anyone.

The new guy is not good at any sort of community-building. He's also so hyped-up, conversationally awkward, and full of "hey, Jesus LOVES you" kind of interjections that most of the congregation wouldn't look to him for a conversation let alone any sort of actual pastoral care.

Nor is he good at reading the room. Whether or not most of the musicians are there as musicians rather than congregation, this is a Presbyterian church that has had an exceptionally strong musical tradition since its inception, with a choir since 1859 (and yes, that is pretty unusual for a Presbyterian church) and an organ since 1884 (which is even more unusual than the choir). It currently has 6 organists/organ scholars (+ more students), adult and children's choir, and is important for training church music skills - for any demonimation - in the area.

The gardens (looked after by congregation volunteers) are a focal point in the city, used by way more people than ever go into the church, and intended to be a place of rest and contemplation for everyone.

These are forms of ministry that may not matter in the sense of the ultimate purpose of the church, but they are very definitely what gets people through the doors in the first place. Most churches in this city have closed due to lack of congregation. This one gets congregations of 800 at Christmas and Easter. The main way families join (and then stay for decades) is by having kids join the choir.

To deliberately tell the musicians and gardeners that they are only interested in their hobbies and are doing religion all wrong and that the church would be better off without them and their vainglory, does come across a bit rich - particularly as there's a slightly older Presbyterian church just down the road he could go to that has no stained glass, no choir, no organ, plain grass outside (with No Trespassing signs), and a heavy emphasis on the gospel, evangelism and absolutely no vainglory whatsoever.

So, maybe we all are doing his religion all wrong. But a lot of people are quite happy about it and it's a pretty thriving community.

Hope that extra context helped a bit. Of course we'd give a new minister a fair go, but if the new minister explicitly doesn't want people like us there... well I guess there's always the Anglican choir up the hill (which we already sing in).

@NonCatholicInCatholicSchool We're humanists ... but if the new minister explicitly doesn't want people like us there.

So you are not Christian, and that is fine. Of course the minister wants 'people like you' there - that is what church is for: a place for people 'like you' to find Jesus and to equip those who are born again in Spirit and in Truth to help people 'like you' to come to know Christ.

There's an interesting tension here, which I think the Anglicans are quite familiar with also.

Clergy who create a community of people in an environment that is welcoming and congenial, without pushing everyone to share exactly the same ideas, tend to draw people in and keep them there, whether they believe in Christianity as a set of literal truths or as a giant extended metaphor.

Clergy who want very specific details of belief to be openly professed by everyone present, tend to quickly break up communities like the one above. They also form new communities, but these don't necessarily last longer than the tenure of one individual minister/priest.

This is visible in our city in the ever-shifting sands of the small, fervently evangelical variously-denominational churches that appear and disappear on a scale of months to years, and the seemingly-overnight closures of the many, many more traditional churches when a particular kind of ministry appears. Meanwhile the more welcoming, more pastoral kinds of place plod on from decade to decade with their music and their stained glass and their low-demands version of whichever religion, which is all pretty much like dilute middle of the road English Anglicanism.

The main tenet of christianity is belief that jesus died and rose again to save you personally though.

All people are welcome at church but if the person at the front doesnt say this at least occassionally then i think there is something going a bit wrong.

I would say that the main tenet of Christianity is that God wants a relationship with each and every one of us, and has been present in creation and the created since the beginning, wanting poeple to know God and love God, as God loves us. All of the Old Testament is about God's relationship with God's people (and theirs with God), and the New Testament is also about that - God becoming present in creation through Jesus, who opened up the way to relatsionship with God through his death and resurrection, and it's through grace we are saved, by faith.
Your old minister sounds more pastorally inclined in this direction (to me), while the potential new chap sounds to be more of the 'Repent or die' school of theology (though that's putting it a bit extreme-ly). They way to get people through the door is not (in my opinion) to tell people they're all deadful sinners and need to repent (most people won't know what the means anyway). It's holding carol services, and having a community garden, and places of welcome, and a youth club, or a 'knit and natter' group, or whatever it is that lets people see that 'church' is a place where all are welcome, whether they're of some belief or none, or theologically educated or downright confused, or adent Christian, or skeptical agnostic.
Telling people that the only way to 'do' Christianity is X (his) way will alienate a lot of people if he's not careful. But it does make me wonder why, given the previous minister's views, the church would employ potential new chap if he's so different? Do they get any choice in who they have as a minister? (I know you do in other denominations).

I assume you have elders or trustees. What is their view? During a vacancy, in Anglicanism, we have to do a lot of vision work to determine where we have come from and where we have discerned we are called, as a church to be. It isn’t about just getting a warm body to preach and lead services. I don’t know how this works in congregational churches, but it is worth asking the question of the elders about the historic musical tradition of the church and where this sits, in vision and mission, in the search for a new minister.