Ship of Fools: "I don't want to bother Father."

Thread: "I don't want to bother Father." Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027699

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

...is the phrase that I hear often when parishioners don't actually request or want pastoral care or counselling from their clergy.

In my experience, it is often regularly attending, church members who are reluctant to avail themselves of pastoral care. In some cases, it means they feel they must suffer in silence in whatever they are going through.

Has anyone else have this experience? And do you have any pointers in encouraging people to consider pastoral counselling or care from their clergy?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Depending on the clergy person and the time, I can think of clergy I've had who I wouldn't have wanted to bother because they seemed so busy. When there's a big fuss over that there, the roof is leaking over here, and Pastor just seems so very busy, one doesn't want to bother her/him.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Are you sure they aren't getting along OK?

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

For a long time now Baptist churches have recognised the issue of the overloaded 'monopastor' by setting up some form of pastoral team whereby you know who your 'pastoral team member' is and they are your first port of call for counselling.

This has also long been the case in 'Brethren' churches where there is usually a group of elders running things rather than a single minister.

On the one hand this makes seeking pastoral help much easier, less intimidating, and so on, and protects against one person becoming overloaded as Gwai hints at. However on the other hand, even then too many people don't bother the pastoral team, which suggests a wider problem than just "not wanting to bother 'Father'". Reluctance to seek help is a problem in itself, and probably leads to many unrecognised difficulties for churches.

I've recently been making some effort to use the team more and indeed to share more with others in the church - and it has been beneficial.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think there's a balance to be struck - both in settings where there is more of a 'monoculture' in terms of leadership or pastoral care and in those where there is a team or shared approach.

Some church cultures - both 'high' and 'low' it seems to me - can create a culture of dependency.

I've certainly seen this happen in certain evangelical charismatic circles where, indeed, one could argue that the whole object of the exercise is to create a 'dependency culture' in order to keep people on-board.

Anyone who has come across charismatic churches where people keep 'going forward' for 'ministry' again and again and again will be only too aware of what I'm getting at.

In my own parish setting, being provocative, the imcumbent, wider leadership team and those 'trained' to conduct so called 'prayer ministry' would be the last people I'd go to with any personal or pastoral problems.

I'd be inclined to look to trusted friends and to clergy I know elsewhere rather than in my own church.

Why?

Because I know what I'd get. Half-digested pietistic platitudes for the most part.

My wife had breast-cancer last year and I could see our vicar's wife was itching to 'lay hands on her' and pray for a good while. Eventually, she cornered my wife after one service and did so. My wife simply smiled and shrugged it off. But she did feel it was an invasion and violation of her personal space.

I'm glad I wasn't there at the time otherwise I might have 'had words.'

I'm sure the gesture was well meant but I often think this sort of thing is done to fulfil a need on the part of the person doing the praying rather than the recipient.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyone who has come across charismatic churches where people keep 'going forward' for 'ministry' again and again and again will be only too aware of what I'm getting at.

I've observed it as well - the same handful of people go up for prayer/healing/etc every single Sunday. If the rector asks people to come up who need to recommit to Jesus, they're up there. People who are bereaved - same. People who are struggling in their jobs - same. And so on. It's a bit troubling to be honest, they either have extremely damaged lives given the myriad problems they claim to have, or they just need some attention.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
...is the phrase that I hear often when parishioners don't actually request or want pastoral care or counselling from their clergy.

In my experience, it is often regularly attending, church members who are reluctant to avail themselves of pastoral care. In some cases, it means they feel they must suffer in silence in whatever they are going through.

Has anyone else have this experience? And do you have any pointers in encouraging people to consider pastoral counselling or care from their clergy?

In my experience, there are a lot of possible issues going on here, all of which need to be handled differently:

1. There are people new to the church who simply don't realize that that's something pastors do. So simply educating them-- a phone call to let them know you're available would do the trick.

2. Similarly, there are generational differences in expectations & even comfort level of pastoral care. Younger generations have little experience with it (because they've had fewer serious illnesses), don't know how/when to ask for it, or much expectation of it. In my experience, many younger people are particularly uncomfortable with the traditional settings for pastoral care: the pastor's office or the parishioner's home. Inviting them to meet for coffee at Starbucks seems to work far better-- just a more comfortable, relaxed setting. This group also responds well to lay pastoral care (e.g. Stephen's ministers, deacons, or more informal lay leadership options).

3. Conversely, older generations seem to have in my experience fairly high expectations for pastoral care. They often expect pastors to be omniscient-- to "just know" that a long term member is ill or unhappy or whatever, and get peeved if they don't. "I don't want to bother Father" can have a passive-aggressive ring to it-- they really DO want Father to be bothered-- but they want to be important enough they don't have to ask. This group will appreciate visits from deacons or Stephen's ministers, but they don't "count". They still won't see them as "real" pastoral visits. In fact, as a female ordained clergyperson, I found older parishioners would similarly view my visits-- they liked/appreciated them, but they don't count. Dealing with these sorts of issues can be difficult. As irritating as the passive-aggressive nature of it can be, there may be some value in accommodating their expectations, if resources are available. But of course, the "omniscience" thing is gonna be a hard one to meet. Having well-trained lay leaders who know to call the pastor with a heads up re: pastoral needs helps.

4. These statements can come from a false view of Christian piety-- that there's virtue in suffering silently, that it's not OK to admit to struggles. Effecting long term teaching/preaching is probably the only way to address this unless/until a specific person suffering from this false pov is identified.

That's my 2 cents.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

The one about people who don't think they've been visited unless it is THE minister is another side issue to this. I recall such a situation at a Methodist church I knew where relatives were complaining that a lady "hadn't been visited by the church" even though she had been - very frequently! They turned out to mean that 'THE Minister' hadn't been to see her. The person who told me about this was a bit miffed about that because not only had she been one of the regular visitors, she was herself an ordained minister - but apparently she didn't count either!

No easy answer to that kind of thing....

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Possibly a high/low church distinction? I've seen the total reverse of the OP much more, but only in churches where calling the minister/priest 'Father' would be seriously rebuked.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Possibly a high/low church distinction? I've seen the total reverse of the OP much more, but only in churches where calling the minister/priest 'Father' would be seriously rebuked.

As Steve Langton suggests, one would have thought that this would be the case ... but it doesn't necessarily follow. Even in Baptist churches, where ordination is usually understood as "recognition of gifts and setting aside for a particular role", rather than an ontological change, many members still think that only a visit from "the" Minister counts.

Does this mean that Clergy have put themselves on a pedestal or created a dependency culture? Or that something of the mediaeval understanding of the Priest in the Catholic Church still lingers within Protestant Nonconformity? Worse than that, does it mean that devout Christian still think that "only the Minister's prayers can really do the magic"?

If so, we're sunk!

P.S. Regarding the OP: why is it that people with real needs "won't bother Father" while other people, who can perfectly well do things for themselves, bombard clergy with the most trivial requests?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

On a slight tangent, am I right in thinking that it's only the RCs who go in for the ontological change thing?

Whatever the case, I think it's possible to find unhealthy dependency things going on right across the spectrum. As well as the opposite - as Cliffdweller notes, a kind of falsely pious 'suffer in silence' thing.

Not an easy issue.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On a slight tangent, am I right in thinking that it's only the RCs who go in for the ontological change thing?

Whatever the case, I think it's possible to find unhealthy dependency things going on right across the spectrum. As well as the opposite - as Cliffdweller notes, a kind of falsely pious 'suffer in silence' thing.

Not an easy issue.

No, Anglicans do too - hence priests are priests for their entire life, even if they lose their license to preach.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In my experience, it is often regularly attending, church members who are reluctant to avail themselves of pastoral care. In some cases, it means they feel they must suffer in silence in whatever they are going through.

As Gwai suggested, it is the regularly attending church members who know how much Father has to do and are thus reluctant to add to his burden. I think the best thing the priest can do is to emphasise that providing pastoral care is an important part of his/her ministry and not an imposition.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

There's a move in many churches for the minister to be accessible rather than available.

It's a bad move in my view as it somehow seems to put the minister/pastor/priest (or whatever description you use) as rather beyond others.

I see my role, status and function as being driven by pastoral considerations. Yes people may think I'm too busy but it's partly up to me to

a) not give that impression
b) make myself available
c) be proactive in providing care
d) have a good team who communicate
e) make sure I listen

I can't do everything, though. Several hundred people have a direct link to the church and we have an active witness to a wider community of several thousand. As part of welcoming people into the fellowship here, we explain how we can care for and support each other.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]No, Anglicans do too - hence priests are priests for their entire life, even if they lose their license to preach.

Is that true of all Anglicans? I thought the more low church Anglicans held a view of ordination that is as loose as we Baptists.

I thought it was more of an A-C idea really. Can the ontological change be reversed in any circumstances under this view?

[ 28. July 2014, 19:15: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
No, Anglicans do too - hence priests are priests for their entire life, even if they lose their license to preach.
Is that true of all Anglicans? I thought the more low church Anglicans held a view of ordination that is as loose as we Baptists.

I thought it was more of an A-C idea really. Can the ontological change be reversed in any circumstances under this view?

Well - not all Anglicans will agree that there is an ontological change, but the CoE ordination rite makes it clear that the church understands ordination as involving an ontological change. Low-church clergy will just ignore this bit of the ordination rite, but they still have to go through it.

I am not aware of any circumstances that reverse the ontological change, but that's not to say that there aren't any.

[code]

[ 28. July 2014, 20:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Interesting. I might be wrong but my understanding of the Orthodox position on this is that they don't see ordination as conferring any 'ontological' change. They think that's another Western innovation.

I'm not familiar with the wording of Anglican ordination services, where's the part that suggests an ontological change?

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Interesting. I might be wrong but my understanding of the Orthodox position on this is that they don't see ordination as conferring any 'ontological' change. They think that's another Western innovation.

I'm not familiar with the wording of Anglican ordination services, where's the part that suggests an ontological change?

So if there's no ontological change then, if the priest can't make it, anyone can step into the breach?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Interesting. I might be wrong but my understanding of the Orthodox position on this is that they don't see ordination as conferring any 'ontological' change. They think that's another Western innovation.

I'm not familiar with the wording of Anglican ordination services, where's the part that suggests an ontological change?

Here is the ordination rite. It's not as clearly suggesting an ontological change as I was remembering, though I do still read it as saying that. Also the recent DH-related priest-firing debacle has the priest in question stripped of his license to preach - he's not de-priested, because priesthood is permanent in the CoE.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I have heard it.

When (and it is a big if) a Reformed congregation is working properly then there is a system to counteract this. It is called the Eldership.

That is every person within a congregation has another lay person who is responsible for looking out for their welfare within the congregation. The people who are responsible are supposed to be pro-active about finding out. They are also supposed to keep the minister informed when a ministerial pastoral visit would be welcome.

When it is working well it does a lot more than this. It works to give people a connection into the congregation, a way of noting when someone is not managing to come to church and deal with it without making a song and dance and a place where things can be talked through in confidence.

However, it does rely on highly motivated elders who make it work. That is the big if. With the added administration that is demanded in the URC of elders, there are very few Elderships where this type of Eldership is prioritized.

Jengie

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyone who has come across charismatic churches where people keep 'going forward' for 'ministry' again and again and again...
I've observed it as well - the same handful of people go up for prayer/healing/etc every single Sunday...

In defense of those who ask for prayer again and again - a friend's 30-something son was on drugs. At a weekly prayer meeting she asked for prayer for him every week. Yes it got a little boring for the rest of us to hear the same request, but is it more important that she not say what is tearing at her heart just for our comfort? The reason she asked every week is because every week he was still on drugs. It was still a serious need.

Is a person with an ongoing problem suppose to pretend everything is fine after one prayer? If the cancer treatments continue, the relationship is still in danger, the job still missing in spite of efforts to find one, we are suppose to NOT ask for prayer? What happened the the frequent instructions to be persistent in prayer?

The idea that you get only one shot at any request feeds the idea God doesn't answer prayer, and/or teaches us to give help only one time to someone with an ongoing need. Not many problems physical relational economic or spiritual are "fixed" with one time help.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, Belle Ringer, but there's surely a more 'holistic' way of dealing with persistent problems than laying on some kind of 'altar-call' week after week ... ?

@Garasu, of course someone else could step into the breach ... if they were ordained ...

[Biased]

The thing about it only being ordained clergy and so on who celebrate the eucharist in the CofE doesn't bother me at all...

I don't feel 'excluded' because I'm not permitted to do so. Why should I?

Back in my 'new church' restorationist and my Baptist days I did 'preside' (for want of a better word) in the 'breaking of bread' a few times. I can't remember how many - but a handful of times perhaps.

That was fine, because that was the done-thing in that context.

It's not the way things are done among the Anglicans and that's fine too - because that's the way things are done in that context.

I don't really see the big deal.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Meanwhile, I've just skimmed through the ordination rite, Jade Constable and I couldn't see anything that immediately struck me as suggesting an ontological change.

Did I overlook it?

What particular section appears to uphold that view?

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Garasu, of course someone else could step into the breach ... if they were ordained ...

So priests are different? In kind?

I'm clearly not getting it, but I'm not clear what I'm not getting?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyone who has come across charismatic churches where people keep 'going forward' for 'ministry' again and again and again will be only too aware of what I'm getting at.
I've observed it as well - the same handful of people go up for prayer/healing/etc every single Sunday. If the rector asks people to come up who need to recommit to Jesus, they're up there. People who are bereaved - same. People who are struggling in their jobs - same. And so on. It's a bit troubling to be honest, they either have extremely damaged lives given the myriad problems they claim to have, or they just need some attention.

They must have needs that aren't being met in any other way, which is a problem in itself. Ideally, churches would have a wider range of ministries, including being able to direct people to useful sources of secular counselling.

As for not wanting to bother the minister, I share that feeling. MOTR clergy tend to have a high regard for the pastoral side of things, but my sense is that they get on best with specific kinds of problems. They deal well with the sicknesses of old age. I suppose they know what to say in those circumstances. Sometimes I think I ought to hang around in the traditional church for long enough to be able to benefit from those particular skills, because at the moment my wimpy problems are unlikely to be soothed by the personal assistance of the clergy!

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

Anglican theology of indelibly - the character of ordination - is inferred in the Canon c1.2:

quote:
2. No person who has been admitted to the order of bishop, priest, or deacon can ever be divested of the character of his order, but a minister may either by legal process voluntarily relinquish the exercise of his orders and use himself as a layman, or may by legal and canonical process be deprived of the exercise of his orders or deposed therefrom.

You can chose to stop acting as a priest, or the Church can forcibly prevent you from doing so, but the ordination can never be removed.

X

AV

[ 28. July 2014, 23:24: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I have heard it.

When (and it is a big if) a Reformed congregation is working properly then there is a system to counteract this. It is called the Eldership.

That is every person within a congregation has another lay person who is responsible for looking out for their welfare within the congregation. The people who are responsible are supposed to be pro-active about finding out. They are also supposed to keep the minister informed when a ministerial pastoral visit would be welcome.

When it is working well it does a lot more than this. It works to give people a connection into the congregation, a way of noting when someone is not managing to come to church and deal with it without making a song and dance and a place where things can be talked through in confidence.

However, it does rely on highly motivated elders who make it work. That is the big if. With the added administration that is demanded in the URC of elders, there are very few Elderships where this type of Eldership is prioritized.

Jengie

Hmmmm. I am an ordained minister in a Reformed denom. Check my post above re: how well it worked for (female associate) Minister of Word and Sacrament to provide pastoral care. For elders, it's even more of a "doesn't count" situation-- but, again, only for the older generation.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

When I was an active pastor often times it seemed I was the last one to know. Last church I was at though had a very active prayer chain which I was connected to. Helped.

Some congregations in the US have also started Stephen Ministries in which trained lay people are assigned six to eight people to stay in contact with. If something comes up, they will ask permission to contact the pastor.

I also found staying in contact with parishioners helped. I made it a goal to contact every member of my parish at least once a year through calls or face to face visits.

They all knew I would go out of my way to visit them if the need arose,

Now that I am not in the pastorate, I still work with my local pastor to keep him informed about what I am hearing. As long as I don't receive something in a confessional setting I am pretty open about it.

He admits he is sometimes the last person to know what is happening too.

Just heard a confession today from a member. I will honor that member's privacy, though I expect at some point that member will approach the pastor which I encouraged them to do.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

I seem to do less and less pastoral work the more I pray with people, encourage their discipleship and bible study I do. It's a bit odd really.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[qb] So if there's no ontological change then, if the priest can't make it, anyone can step into the breach?

In the Baptist church, yes - and sometimes even when the priest can make it.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
Anglican theology of indelibly - the character of ordination - is inferred in the Canon c1.2:

quote:
2. No person who has been admitted to the order of bishop, priest, or deacon can ever be divested of the character of his order, but a minister may either by legal process voluntarily relinquish the exercise of his orders and use himself as a layman, or may by legal and canonical process be deprived of the exercise of his orders or deposed therefrom.
You can chose to stop acting as a priest, or the Church can forcibly prevent you from doing so, but the ordination can never be removed.

X

AV

Agreed - you can't unact an an act. The debate is surely around what that act actually does -- is there a change in character as a result of the actions performed or merely an affirmation of character? In other words, does being ordained "make" you anything?

I'd rather think not - as this act would be God's calling. We're all ordained anyway.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Garasu. I don't get what you don't get.

In the CofE it's only ordained ministers who get to preside at communion. That doesn't mean that they are different 'in kind' to anyone else.

It's not that anyone who is ordained has a different knee-cap, liver (unless they drink too much), or willy (if they have one) than anyone else.

It's simply that they are the ones authorised to carry out that particular task or office or whatever we might call it - on behalf of the others.

As ExclamationMark says, in Baptist churches it's not just the minister who can 'preside' - or whatever term Baptists might use. I've 'presided' over communion in a Baptist church - once with the minister present - at other times without.

I don't feel any more or less 'empowered' or disenfranchised in either setting. It's not as if in either the Baptists or the Anglicans anyone is saying that you're 'better' than anyone else because you've presided at the communion.

It's all a question of context.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
In defense of those who ask for prayer again and again...

I do understand that and of course realize people have ongoing problems. I certainly do!

The thing is that the rector does try to focus the calls forward for prayer on specific issues, usually related to the sermon. So it does strike me as unlikely that the same 4-5 people (and it is a small number) always require prayer on every single issue.

For example last Sunday it was for people who had either not yet committed to Christ or who had been astray for a long time and wanted to come back. So why would these same people who are at church every Sunday, involved in home groups, and one who is a reader, go up to the front?

Perhaps there is a gap in our pastoral care but it makes me uncomfortable to go up for prayer myself, mostly because I end up having to wait because the usual suspects rush to the front as soon as there is a call.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, Seekingsister, this is something I noticed 20 year ago when I was involved with a more full-on charismatic fellowship.

I wouldn't be surprised if those same people were 'going forward' for the self-same things 20 years later.

Some issues are never going to be resolved until eternity, of course.

But I think SvitlanaV2 is on the money when she suggests that churches have to become more adept at steering people to sources of help in a more holistic way - be it conventional, secular counselling for instance.

These days, there are plenty of Christian forms of counselling and support too. Although some are clearly better than others and the quality varies.

I think what's happened in charismatic circles is that the 'altar-call' or 'ministry time' or whatever people call it, has developed into a kind of parallel liturgy.

It's become an unwritten part of what's expected to happen. Consequently, both your rector and those who go forward so regularly for prayer have become culturally conditioned to expect it.

At our parish they've had so-called 'prayer ministry' at the end of the more informal 11am service for some time.

Now, they are beginning to introduce it at the end of the more traditional 9am service.

A group of specially 'trained' people come it at the end of the 9am service (they almost invariably are people who attend the 11am one). They sit to one side and at the end of the service the vicar invites anyone who would like prayer to go and sit with them.

There's nothing 'forced' or manipulative about this, but on more than one occasion I've heard the 'prayer ministry' people and the vicar express disappointment that no-one has availed themselves of the opportunity.

Most of the 9am congregation are elderly or at least more 'conservative' in their spirituality and so tend to drift off at the end of the service - either to go home to the church hall for tea and coffee.

To me,it justs seems a bizarre thing to do. It feels like a Trojan Horse to try to introduce more 11am-ish practices into the 9am service. If people wanted the 11am stuff they'd go to the 11am service.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'd also suggest, Seeking Sister, that the way these 'appeals' or invitations are couched are so general that almost anyone could fit into the categories offered.

'Been astray for sometime ...' Heck, during any single week there are times when I 'feel astray'.

No, what's going on here is rather disturbing, I think. These people are becoming addicted to the attention and to the temporary adrenalin rush they receive when they respond.

It's like a spiritual comfort-blanket.

Rather than issue these invitations, it would better to try to equip people to face the vicissitudes of life with fortitude. By robust teaching and catechism ... supported by genuine love and concern of course.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think what's happened in charismatic circles is that the 'altar-call' or 'ministry time' or whatever people call it, has developed into a kind of parallel liturgy.

It's become an unwritten part of what's expected to happen. Consequently, both your rector and those who go forward so regularly for prayer have become culturally conditioned to expect it.

...

There's nothing 'forced' or manipulative about this, but on more than one occasion I've heard the 'prayer ministry' people and the vicar express disappointment that no-one has availed themselves of the opportunity.

I slightly disagree with that final comment: the very fact of it being offered each time increases a certain sense of anticipation - although I'm sure the "pray-ers" don't intend that. The same was true of the Toronto Blessing: clearing the chairs and bringing on the "catchers" subtly increased the psychological pressure to get "slain in the Spirit". As you say, a parallel liturgy, with all that involves and implies.

However, might we get back to the OP ... especially as I've already tangentified it at least once?

[ 29. July 2014, 08:57: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok - yes, I concur with your interjection, Baptist Trainfan, both in terms of your observation about the 'expectation' thing and the need to get back to the OP ...

I s'pose the tangent does raise the issue of what our expectations are and how we would see them being met or fulfilled.

What are we expecting in terms of pastoral help and support?

Are we looking for:

- A listening ear?

- Practical advice?

- Information on sources of possible help?

- Some kind of divine intervention? Whether that is understand in a 'zapping' Toronto sense or in other ways?

A combination of some or all of these?

It seems clear to me that we can't expect one person or even a team of people to provide all of these - at least not simultaneously.

We're never going to completely be able to manage expectations but we need to have some way of identifying and defining them.

If not we run the risk of burn-out on the ministerial/clergy side or disillusionment and disappointment on the part of those seeking help.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyone who has come across charismatic churches where people keep 'going forward' for 'ministry' again and again and again will be only too aware of what I'm getting at.
I've observed it as well - the same handful of people go up for prayer/healing/etc every single Sunday. If the rector asks people to come up who need to recommit to Jesus, they're up there. People who are bereaved - same. People who are struggling in their jobs - same. And so on. It's a bit troubling to be honest, they either have extremely damaged lives given the myriad problems they claim to have, or they just need some attention.

Actually, the thought occurs to me that these people are at least determined enough to take what's on offer at church without caring what other people think. If I ever joined a charismatic church, I'd hardly ever want to 'go foward', for fear of what the people watching might be thinking: 'She went up two weeks ago, so why does she need to go again? What's wrong with her? She's just an attention-seeker!'

However, the appeal of the altar call for some people probably shows that what church leaders think they're offering isn't necessarily what people in the pews are actually receiving. We create our own meanings out of the formal rituals that are available. This is true of all kinds of church.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Actually, the thought occurs to me that these people are at least determined enough to take what's on offer at church without caring what other people think. If I ever joined a charismatic church, I'd hardly ever want to 'go foward', for fear of what the people watching might be thinking: 'She went up two weeks ago, so why does she need to go again? What's wrong with her? She's just an attention-seeker!'

Well to relate this back to the OP - there are times where I need prayer on the specific issue at hand, but the usual suspects rush to the front immediately, meaning I'd have to hang around awkwardly at the front while waiting for someone from the prayer ministry team to free up. So I sit in my seat instead.

Their behavior prevents me from participating.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Are the leaders too afraid to 'deal' with these people properly? Or do you think the leaders might be party to confidential information that explains why they're indulgent towards them?

If it's the former, perhaps the real problem is that 'Father' doesn't want to bother 'us'!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm afraid I've got big issues with the idea of a 'prayer ministry team' in the first place. The people who are usually attracted to such teams are the last people I'd go to if I had a problem.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Actually, the thought occurs to me that these people are at least determined enough to take what's on offer at church without caring what other people think...
...there are times where I need prayer on the specific issue at hand, but the usual suspects rush to the front immediately, meaning I'd have to hang around awkwardly at the front while waiting for someone from the prayer ministry team to free up. So I sit in my seat instead.

Their behavior prevents me from participating.

If I feel a need (desperation) to respond, I go forward and hang around. Awkwardly, sure, but better than denying my own need to be there. And often if I do go forward and hang around, others come too, hanging around becomes a patient group waiting their turn.

If people stay in their seat, those arranging the program don't know the existing system isn't working. What they see is only a few people have need or desire for this.

It seems worth raising in a private discussion with someone who can make necessary changes - what do they think you should do when you would like to go forward in response but feel crowded out by the ones who go every week?

More prayer stations as some upthread have mentioned might be one answer. Or prayer teams who approach individuals with "come over here to be prayed for" pulling some of the excess numbers away from the central place.

I've been in conferences where the coordinator announces the big name guy (or gal) will not be praying for anyone, go to a prayer team during prayer time. This prevents everyone lining up for one person while prayer teams stand around unused.

A similar announcement could be made in a church - "we're doing things differently, trained prayer teams instead of the clergy will stay with anyone who needs prayer as long as there is need." Or "only those wanting to join the church should go to the pastor, he will direct any who come to him for prayer to go to a prayer team." (Of course this requires the pastor to totally agree with the change.) The program can continue with hymn and closing prayers meanwhile.

I will also mention, I've heard sermons /conference talks where the speaker said NOT going forward in response to an invitation is rejecting God because we always have more to commit to God, prayer needs, whatever. Some people go forward because they think they are supposed to. If that becomes a habit, it "doesn't feel right" to just stay seated in the pew. Habits are powerful.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm afraid I've got big issues with the idea of a 'prayer ministry team' in the first place. The people who are usually attracted to such teams are the last people I'd go to if I had a problem.

I'm afraid that I tend to agree. I'm sure that text about "Not laying hands on any man suddenly" (1 Tim. 5:22) needs to get a bit of a look in here! (Yes, I know that it's probably about ordination or setting aside for ministry, but still ...!)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I will also mention, I've heard sermons /conference talks where the speaker said NOT going forward in response to an invitation is rejecting God because we always have more to commit to God, prayer needs, whatever. Some people go forward because they think they are supposed to. If that becomes a habit, it "doesn't feel right" to just stay seated in the pew. Habits are powerful.

As the Japanese friend of a Western missionary (Michael Griffiths) said at an evangelistic rally, "Is it all right if I don't go forward? Will he be offended?" Forces other than purely spiritual ones may be at work here!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Whenever there is an altar call during the service, I always stand up and rush ... towards the nearest exit.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Whenever there is an altar call during the service, I always stand up and rush ... towards the nearest exit.

One could make a point of it and head for the furthest exit ... [Devil]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Absolutely ...

People being 'trained' in 'prayer ministry' is a busy-bodies' charter. What it really means is that they have been trained to use cues and techniques to elicit particular responses from desperate, vulnerable or suggestible people.

Away with this nonsense already!

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Absolutely ...

People being 'trained' in 'prayer ministry' is a busy-bodies' charter. What it really means is that they have been trained to use cues and techniques to elicit particular responses from desperate, vulnerable or suggestible people.

Away with this nonsense already!

In most cases, yes. But in some cases it just means people who have been trained NOT to give advice, NOT to offer pat answers/ quote Scripture, but simply to listen, sit with the person, and then pray with them. I do think there's a real value to that-- even when some people come week after week.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I just finished a CPE placement and I now agree with everyone who I know who did do CPE, that a clinical pastoral education unit should be required for everyone intending to pursue ordained ministry.

One thing that I learned in CPE is pastoral ministry is not about fixing people or their problems. It is about listening and being present with people in what they are going through. It is also not about making people happy.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm afraid I've got big issues with the idea of a 'prayer ministry team' in the first place. The people who are usually attracted to such teams are the last people I'd go to if I had a problem.

Well, this is exactly the reason I'd - contra your earlier post - actually prefer a properly trained 'curer of souls' when I need pastoral help.

Which is one of the reasons I think the trend towards outsourcing of pastoral work is a terrible one.

Of course you get elements of control and all sorts of things - but I don't think the new situation actually improves things at all.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm afraid I've got big issues with the idea of a 'prayer ministry team' in the first place. The people who are usually attracted to such teams are the last people I'd go to if I had a problem.
...Which is one of the reasons I think the trend towards outsourcing of pastoral work is a terrible one.

I thought Stephen Ministries has a good reputation. No?

Anyway, some pastors HATE counseling or visiting the sick, some are poorly skilled at it, others can't handle 200 people alone. I would like to see some serious lay training programs, somewhere between "who wants to volunteer" and "graduate from seminary first," for things like hospital visits, the chronically ill, praying for others needs, because we are all doing these already in normal life as friends go through problems, but with zero training many of us (as evidenced by things people said to me at Mom's death) doing them poorly.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
... others can't handle 200 people alone.

No one can handle 200 people effectively on their own

[code]

[ 30. July 2014, 07:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
.... One thing that I learned in CPE is pastoral ministry is not about fixing people or their problems. It is about listening and being present with people in what they are going through. It is also not about making people happy.

Has anyone told them that?

I rather think from experience that is what most (if not all) expect

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Absolutely ...

People being 'trained' in 'prayer ministry' is a busy-bodies' charter. What it really means is that they have been trained to use cues and techniques to elicit particular responses from desperate, vulnerable or suggestible people.

Away with this nonsense already!

It is useful at certain times for certain people.

My church does offer pastoral care by the actual ordained staff, prayer ministry is a separate activity to that.

But I am personally more likely to want a short prayer for something going on that I feel is out of my control, than to book an appointment with the rector to talk about my issues. Unless they are specifically spiritual/theological things that I think he is best placed to answer.

I suppose that's my version of not wanting to "bother Father!"

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Not sure if it's happening now or not, but the prayer ministry here is/was offered as an optional extra to communion and the main Sunday service. The church has two side chapels up by the main high altar, the one to the north is to a quiet enclosed chapel, the south has a chapel that also works as a corridor route back from the high altar to the nave. Prayer ministry is offered in the north chapel - people just choose to got left rather than right after communion and sit in prayer (and almost silence) with volunteers who offer prayer ministry - laying on of hands is also offered. I am pretty sure the same people avail themselves of the opportunity every time it's there, but it's discreet so no-one can check on it, and is it happens near or after communion it's quietly done.

I'm pretty sure there's a quiet check on who is there and there may be some follow up by the ministry team if someone new appears unexpectedly.

There have been various healing services - usually on a Sunday evening, but they have never worked that well and not as the proponents envisage, so have never continued.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Has anyone else have this experience? And do you have any pointers in encouraging people to consider pastoral counselling or care from their clergy?

I'm jumping in a bit late and have only skim-read everyone's contribution, so apologies if this is irrelevant or duplicating what others have said...

Isn't it pretty obvious that the giving of pastoral care should be a task spread across the whole of a church? Those with particular strengths in this area should, as their available time permits, lead on the provision of pastoral care and (just as importantly) the training / encouraging of others to do the same.

But these people with pastoral skills / gifts (and the time available to use them) might not be the clergy or staff of the church.

I might be speaking from naivety and idealism, but I think the attitude that some have mentioned, whereby pastoral care is only considered to be such if it's given by the minister / priest, should be challenged in pretty strong terms. It's an attitude that, ISTM, runs clearly contrary to the whole 'body of Christ' ethos; loading up burdens onto those who might already be busy and stressed (the clergy / ministers, I mean) and denying non-clergy with pastoral gifts one clear route by which they can use and develop those gifts.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The problem with allowing pastoral ministry to be run by volunteers is that often those who have a self-appointed ministry to be prayer warriors dominate, and they are the very worst people to get involved in supporting others, in my experience. It often becomes all about the needs of the self-appointed, not the people asking for support.

The hospital visitor ministry here is ecumenical, trained and licensed, run by the pastor of a nonconformist church whose day job is in the hospital. This means that there is a team of people who hospital visit. This system allows co-ordination so everyone gets visited rather than one (church) person with hundreds of visitors and they are trained so they don't evangelise inappropriately and know when to pass on concerns. But it allows stuff to be collected from home or the cat to be fed or all sorts of different forms of support to be provided within a supervised structure.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with allowing pastoral ministry to be run by volunteers is that often those who have a self-appointed ministry to be prayer warriors dominate, and they are the very worst people to get involved in supporting others, in my experience. It often becomes all about the needs of the self-appointed, not the people asking for support.

The hospital visitor ministry here is ecumenical, trained and licensed, run by the pastor of a nonconformist church whose day job is in the hospital. This means that there is a team of people who hospital visit. This system allows co-ordination so everyone gets visited rather than one (church) person with hundreds of visitors and they are trained so they don't evangelise inappropriately and know when to pass on concerns. But it allows stuff to be collected from home or the cat to be fed or all sorts of different forms of support to be provided within a supervised structure.

Sounds like what we need is a system of training and licensing people for prayer ministry, not banishing the idea of lay people from prayer ministry.

Yes untrained volunteers can be a problem, but I've had inappropriate (demeaning) prayers from clergy, too.

Personally I find trusted friends far better at prayer support than clergy who barely know me.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

To respond to South Coast Kevin. Yes, I agree that pastoral support should be spread across a whole congregation and not be seen as purely the preserve of the priest, minister or leader/s - however designated.

The two Anglican parishes in this town are very different in terms of churchmanship but in each the systems for pastoral care and support are spread across the congregation in various ways.

In neither church are they seen as the sole preserve of the clergy or the leadership teams.

I don't particularly have a problem with 'prayer ministry' in the way CK has described it.

But I do have qualms about the way people are said be 'trained' how to do this sort of thing - particularly when that 'training' comes from the more charismatic end of the spectrum.

Our vicar says that he and his wife have been 'trained' in this sort of thing - seemingly through New Wine / Vineyardy style sources.

As I once attended a Vineyard session that was 'training' people to prophesy - which was highly unconvincing and pretty much cobblers, to be blunt - I don't have a great deal of confidence in these groups and the New Wine end of things to 'train' people in 'prayer ministry' either.

One or two people on the 'prayer ministry' team at our parish seem sound and sensible.

I wouldn't go near any of the others if I had an in-growing toe-nail let alone any other form of concern.

Yes, they're well meaning, but I'd just wary of the kind of glib, pietistic answers that are likely to be given and the so-called 'words' and such like.

I'd be tempted to give them a few choice 'words' of my own ... One of them is 'off'.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with allowing pastoral ministry to be run by volunteers is that often those who have a self-appointed ministry to be prayer warriors dominate, and they are the very worst people to get involved in supporting others, in my experience. It often becomes all about the needs of the self-appointed, not the people asking for support.

I'm all in favour of proper training and oversight; and your hospital visiting ministry sounds great! As for your concerns about 'self-appointed prayer warriors' dominating pastoral ministry, all I can say is that I've not noticed or experienced that in churches I've been involved with. Have I been blind to it, or have my churches somehow got things 'right' (or right-ish) in this regard...?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

A question - is this 'prayer ministry' generally done in public in front of the congregation? I've been part of churches who offer it after the service in a side-chapel or other more private place. What provision is made for those who feel uncomfortable going up in front of everyone?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I haven't seen the self-appointed prayer warrior being allowed official involvement in the prayer ministry - although if someone comes along as a recipient I suspect it would be difficult to stop them wanting to lay on hands and pray for anyone else choosing to ask for prayers. Thinking about it that possibly could be a reason for that initiative quietly fading out again.

I do however know that the prayer list and prayer board are dominated by prayers from this person - for a random collection of people usually completely unknown by everyone else.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Re Stephen Ministers, way up the thread--

Yes, they do have a good rep, well-deserved from what I know of the training; but they are laypeople trained to listen, not counselors or pastors who can do far more if needed. SMs are trained to refer if more than listening is needed.

Second, SMs are there for one-on-one, fairly long-term relationships. You might have an SM if you're going through a divorce or cancer or some major life change. But for sudden crises and things that blow up out of nowhere, SM is not generally the way to go.

Besides, there are never enough of them!

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyone who has come across charismatic churches where people keep 'going forward' for 'ministry' again and again and again will be only too aware of what I'm getting at.
I've observed it as well - the same handful of people go up for prayer/healing/etc every single Sunday. If the rector asks people to come up who need to recommit to Jesus, they're up there. People who are bereaved - same. People who are struggling in their jobs - same. And so on. It's a bit troubling to be honest, they either have extremely damaged lives given the myriad problems they claim to have, or they just need some attention.

In some cases I think this is just an expression of the (informal) rites of the church that some conform to to reassure themselves that the church is being successful.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm afraid I've got big issues with the idea of a 'prayer ministry team' in the first place. The people who are usually attracted to such teams are the last people I'd go to if I had a problem.
I'm afraid that I tend to agree. I'm sure that text about "Not laying hands on any man suddenly" (1 Tim. 5:22) needs to get a bit of a look in here! (Yes, I know that it's probably about ordination or setting aside for ministry, but still ...!)

In my more cynical moments I would say that prayer ministry is the way to avoid providing practical pastoral care. - Praying for a good Samaritan to come along rather being one themselves.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I just finished a CPE placement and I now agree with everyone who I know who did do CPE, that a clinical pastoral education unit should be required for everyone intending to pursue ordained ministry.

One thing that I learned in CPE is pastoral ministry is not about fixing people or their problems. It is about listening and being present with people in what they are going through. It is also not about making people happy.

I agree, though,being a pedant, I would say Pastoral Education does not have to be Clinical. But there are ordained clergy who are not suited to being Pastors. They have other gifts but another member of the congregation my be better suited.
At my* Academy we give courses in Spiritual Care and some of the clergy simply have no idea when they start. Some cannot get the idea that they do not have to have the answers.
Our model is that the Pastoral functions are:-Sustaining, Healing, Guiding (not advice BTW), Reconciling, and Nurturing Spiritual Growth.

* I have done my Certificate in Spiritual Care and hope to get my Diploma this year. But it is also my Academy because I am the technical advisor.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In my experience, it is often regularly attending, church members who are reluctant to avail themselves of pastoral care. In some cases, it means they feel they must suffer in silence in whatever they are going through.

You will here the same thing from (generally speaking) older folks who "don't want to bother the doctor" with their trivial little ailment, so soldier on in significant pain, because they don't want to be a bother.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I do however know that the prayer list and prayer board are dominated by prayers from this person - for a random collection of people usually completely unknown by everyone else.

Ah, I see. Can't anything be done about this, though? A gentle word from a leader or someone else this person trusts and respects? If that doesn't work, then a quick consultation with the congregation to produce a simple set of guidelines / rules that will enable the prayer list and board to work for everyone's benefit?

Maybe things like this have already been tried, but I think we've sometimes got to be tougher on people who are (unknowingly, most of the time!) misusing things and denying their use to other people. Easy for me to say, mind you; I'm not in a formal leadership position at my church!

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

South Coast Kevin - the point was that there are people whose needs are so great that they will use opportunities provided generally and twist them for their own needs, and it's not always easy to support them and provide that service. And I suspect that the usual suspects who always come forward could be in that situation too.

(There are ways of dealing with things like the prayer board and prayer list - various filters in operation)

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
A question - is this 'prayer ministry' generally done in public in front of the congregation? I've been part of churches who offer it after the service in a side-chapel or other more private place. What provision is made for those who feel uncomfortable going up in front of everyone?

In our parish it's done in the front but towards the side, during the final few songs. So anyone who isn't being prayed for is in their seat singing. I occasionally attend another evangelical parish and they do the same.

I suppose there might be some odd people sitting right at the front who would stare at those being prayed for. But most of our congregation is of the eyes closed/hands raised type while singing so not a big issue.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I thought Stephen Ministries has a good reputation. No?

I was referring to the trend in more informal settings for pastoral work to be effectively outsourced to home groups or a prayer ministry team - with the idea that people become 'self feeding'.

quote:

Anyway, some pastors HATE counseling or visiting the sick, some are poorly skilled at it, others can't handle 200 people alone.

Respectfully, I would suggest that if pastors cannot handle pastoral care, then they shouldn't be pastors (the numeric problem can be handled by extra staff).

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Respectfully, I would suggest that if pastors cannot handle pastoral care, then they shouldn't be pastors (the numeric problem can be handled by extra staff).

I think this points towards a rather significant problem in most churches, actually. We tend to think of church leadership (pastoring, as it's called in many churches) as being mainly a matter of teaching and pastoring (i.e. caring for people - shepherding as the original Greek word meant). We're using the word 'pastor' to mean two different things (or at least two things which I think should be different!).

But I think this misses out on plenty of other elements that are important to have in a church leadership / eldership / oversight team. I like the Ephesians 4:16 model of apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds / pastors, and teachers; but even if you don't go for that, it's reasonable to think of church leadership as being a more multi-faceted thing that teaching and shepherding, isn't it?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Whether we agree theologically with SCK's model of church leadership or not (and, personally, I'd very largely concur with him), it seems ridiculous on purely pragmatic terms to expect an ordained minister to be good at the whole gamut of teaching, planning, visiting, counselling, administrating etc.

Such multigifted and omnicompetent people simply don't exist! Indeed, these tasks need such different skill-sets that a person's gifting for one of them may be a hindrance in some others. In practice churches often "call" ministers whose skill-set meets their particular needs (or wishes) and this can cause problems. For instance, I am a good preacher and worship leader but a poor pastor/visitor; my predecessor was exactly the opposite.

So, yes, let's have multiperson "lay" ministry - but with folk properly chosen, screened for suitability and trained.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
teaching, planning, visiting, counselling, administrating etc.

I think part of this is the due to the artificial creation of additional specialities - plus there are things above (like administration) which are obvious candidates for being done by someone else.

I don't see why it's unreasonable to think that one person should be able to both teach the word and counsel people (applying it), of course some people will be better at one than the other.

You could argue that some pastors seemingly expecting that they can operate like an Oxford don and avoid any contact with the hoi polloi is also unreasonable.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I don't see why it's unreasonable to think that one person should be able to both teach the word and counsel people (applying it), of course some people will be better at one than the other.

My point was that defining 'pastoring' (i.e. being the minister / leader / vicar etc. of a church) in solely those terms is not good; because it leaves out an awful lot of what IMO is also involved in church leadership.

If one minister is good at shepherding and teaching, then I think that's great, as long as others involved in the leadership / oversight of that church community are good at the apostolic, prophetic, and evangelistic work. (As well as - a key point, I think - encouraging and supporting others in the church to develop all these gifts / skills too.)

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
(As well as - a key point, I think - encouraging and supporting others in the church to develop all these gifts / skills too.)

I think this can easily devolve into the 'Pastor as CEO' model - where someone sits in their office all day 'visioning' and 'setting direction' and basically being employed by the church to produce books and be a celebrity 'teacher' and preach once a week. I would suggest that there are a lot of people who are attracted to this kind of non-academic-with-the-trappings-of academdia lifestyle.

I think we are all agreed that pastoring should be a team effort that has some lay involvement.

[ 31. July 2014, 10:26: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't have an issue with that in theory, South Coast Kevin - nor theologically.

I tend to think tht there are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (and a lot else besides) in all manner of church settings and irrespective of what the label is.

I am, however, still wary about how some of this works out in practice. But then, there are no systems or ways of 'doing church' that are free from a propensity to go off the rails in one direction or another.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I cross-posted with Chris Stiles ...

I think this has largely happened to a great extent in many of the 'new churches' and the larger charismatic churches among the Baptists and Anglicans.

As a Baptist minister I know who inherited such as situation as it was exploding and imploding said of his predecessor. "His solution was to keep piling 'vision' on top of it. And when that didn't work, he poured more 'vision' on top of it ..."

I think what South Coast Kevin is calling for is a more grass-roots, bottom-up equivalent ... with essentially the same spirituality and expectations but handled in a different way.

I would suggest that all the 'new' and emerging type churches will inevitably hit this phase in their development.

That mightn't be an issue if they are aware of it and build in means to avoid or offset the effects to a certain extent. But then, you run the opposite risk of re-inventing the wheel over and over again. Been there, done that ...

All that said, I believe it should - in theory - be possible to combine the 'traditional' teaching and pastoral aspects with a wider spread of pastoral involvement and care across the congregation as a whole.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think this can easily devolve into the 'Pastor as CEO' model - where someone sits in their office all day 'visioning' and 'setting direction' and basically being employed by the church to produce books and be a celebrity 'teacher' and preach once a week. I would suggest that there are a lot of people who are attracted to this kind of non-academic-with-the-trappings-of academdia lifestyle.

I don't doubt this is a danger, but I really had in mind that people in leadership / oversight roles should be mentoring, empowering and encouraging people. That, ISTM, is a long way from a 'non-academic-with-the-trappings-of academdia' lifestyle!

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I tend to think tht there are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (and a lot else besides) in all manner of church settings and irrespective of what the label is.

Oh yes, hear hear. Personally, I think I'm in favour of using the APEST (apostles, prophets...) framework in an explicit way but 'a rose by any other name smells just as sweet'. The label isn't really important; what matters, to my mind, is that a broad range of gifts and skills are recognised as being necessary for the body of Christ to thrive and grow.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think that a lot of these things are operating anyway, whether they are 'recognised' or not.

It's a bit like spiritual gifts and claims of healing. I tend to think that these things work in inverse proportion to the amount of fuss and rhetoric that is made about them.

The more particular church-streams bang on about how they have apostles and prophets, the less 'apostolic' and the less 'prophetic' they actually become in practice, I think ...

[Biased]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't doubt this is a danger, but I really had in mind that people in leadership / oversight roles should be mentoring, empowering and encouraging people. That, ISTM, is a long way from a 'non-academic-with-the-trappings-of academdia' lifestyle!

A few points SCK, it's not just a danger. It's actually a fairly dominant trend in our time - it's pretty much how all the mega churches (and various mega church aspirants end up) as do a lot of the charismatic church growth types.

I've been the fly on the wall of a few environments where church 'interns' coming in were supposed to benefit from being empowered, mentored and encouraged. Apart from the almost laughable light amount of actual substantive work they did, I'm not sure their morning meetings with the senior pastor actually did any of that.

It's fairly difficult to mentor someone to do something that you can't/aren't doing yourself. On a slight tangent I've also been in a corporate environment which adopted the idea of 'servant leadership', which ended up evolving into a form of management via passive aggression ("I don't know what you should do? What do you think you should do? I'm here to help you").

I know that you are talking about something a little more organic, but the issue is that are a lot of people who are making the same noises as you and meaning something completely different.

I'm not completely opposed to some kind of five fold ministry - though the people who actually name it and directly use it seem most interested in being apostles [Big Grin]

I do think there has to be an element of the top down, in terms of someone who has been trained and spent time thinking about how to be pastoral. I'm not talking about something purely theoretical - I've seen plenty of small to mid size churches led by unsung people who could teach as well as be pastoral, and yes in each case there was and is still plenty of lay involvement. I think the moves away from that in terms of a proliferation of specialities has been problematic at best, and I think there is a trend to professionalize church leadership along the lines of business which are fairly damaging for the church itself.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Wow, Chris Stiles, that's quite a post - and it reflects the concern I have had when looking at some larger churches. I think one of the problems there is that they may well attract people who are people well-versed in "management" from their employment and almost unconsciously transfer that model to church life.

I remember one small church I knew which was "taken over" (at their request, I hasten to add!) by a larger church. The new folk knew how to run a church of 400 people but not one of 25. They spent inordinate amounts of time in "steering groups" and "leadership groups" and the like, when all they really needed to do was appoint a few leaders and then talk things through in congregational meetings.

As for the "don" in his ivory tower sallying forth to deliver Sunday's message - I recognise that tendency in myself and have to constantly fight it. (I am a pretty academic type, as it happens).

By the way, I know of one church (membership about 35) where the Minister styled himself "Senior Pastor" even when there were no other "dedicated" staff - that made me uncomfortable.

[ 01. August 2014, 08:02: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

If you are concerned about being the 'don' in the Geneva gown sallying forth to dispense wisdom, Baptist Trainfan (and I rather suspect there's a lot more to your ministry and to you as a person than that) then the antidote is simply to get out and about.

An RC university chaplain once observed to me that much of his job came down to what he called 'loitering with intent'. He was simply 'there' and simply available. And he was a very good chaplain too, I might say.

It's a while since I've read it, but in The Gospel Driven Church, Ian Stackhouse makes out a case for a kind of 'slow' and reflective ministry ...

In our society, that can look like an unproductive one. We've got to be busy, busy, busy ...

But if we can achieve that, it takes away some of the more 'corporate' aspects.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I've been the fly on the wall of a few environments where church 'interns' coming in were supposed to benefit from being empowered, mentored and encouraged. Apart from the almost laughable light amount of actual substantive work they did, I'm not sure their morning meetings with the senior pastor actually did any of that.

It's fairly difficult to mentor someone to do something that you can't/aren't doing yourself.

Yes, agreed. Mentoring is not something that just happens, nor is it something that most people can do well just straight off the bat. Surely it needs training, just like any other skill. And, yes, I 100% agree that one can only be a mentor in an area in which one is working / functioning.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I do think there has to be an element of the top down, in terms of someone who has been trained and spent time thinking about how to be pastoral. I'm not talking about something purely theoretical - I've seen plenty of small to mid size churches led by unsung people who could teach as well as be pastoral, and yes in each case there was and is still plenty of lay involvement. I think the moves away from that in terms of a proliferation of specialities has been problematic at best, and I think there is a trend to professionalize church leadership along the lines of business which are fairly damaging for the church itself.

But I'm not talking about professionalising church; far from it! I'm talking about recognising the more 'generative' (as I've seen them called) roles / functions / ministries, like apostles, prophets and evangelists, in order to redress the balance from where we are at the moment - which is that most church leadership / ministering is framed in terms of teaching (usually meaning giving sermons, but that's a whole other can of worms!) and shepherding / pastoring.

ISTM that many churches are very good at sustaining what they have, through teaching and pastoring, but fewer are good at pioneering and establishing new things. By which I mean new social welfare and community activities, new businesses, new church plants, new mission activities....

As an illustration of the enterprise angle, I heard a bit the other day about what the Message Trust are doing in Manchester and other UK cities. Exactly what I'm getting at with the 'apostolic' - setting up new Jesus-focused things - ministry.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

which is that most church leadership / ministering is framed in terms of teaching (usually meaning giving sermons, but that's a whole other can of worms!) and shepherding / pastoring.

I think there are obviously exceptions everywhere, however I think more and more churches are places where if someone really had a pastoral problem, there would be no one they could really talk to - and where the best advice would be 'speak to someone in your home group'.

Again, there are exceptions - but the majority of the churches I know that are in the mould of 'lets do this new exciting thing' are also failing to either teach or pastor their existing members. Often they have roots in movements that had a very low church view of the pastor anyway, and so it was fairly easy to erode away. I think there needs to be a certain deliberateness to these things which is often lacking.

Also, the Message Trust is not a church.

[ 01. August 2014, 10:44: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I obviously move in different circles to some folk on this thread ... but may I take it in a different direction, especially as think it's rather strayed from the OP?

It strikes me that quite a lot of the expectations around "pastoral work" in traditional church centre around things such as visiting the elderly or giving support to people in hospitals. Obviously that's not the be-all and end-all: for instance, there will be folk who want to talk through marital issues or about the problems they are having with their children.

Now, I'm not saying that these things are unimportant (although they can lead to a possible bias towards ministry to the elderly, sometimes forgetting that younger folk have needs too). But what I find frustrating is that people seem much less willing to speak about specifically spiritual issues - to me, at least. And yet I feel more able to help them with these difficulties than in some of the others I've mentioned.

Why is this? Have ministers and/or churches unintentionally presented a wrong picture of what pastoral problems are? Are people unwilling to speak about their spirituality? I could think of other ideas ... but what do Shipmates think?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I'm not a member of the clergy, but in MOTR circles I can't imagine many church members wanting to talk to a minister about 'spiritual' matters. Members don't always see the minister as a terribly spiritual person in any case. But the minister is always expected to be able to give comfort to people undergoing physical or some other kind of distress.

I think my ex-minister once said that he had better conversations about faith with non-church folk. Perhaps for many churchgoers their faith is just too personal to share with a church 'official' whom they suspect isn't spiritual in the same way they are. A conversation between a non-churchgoer and a minister might be less burdened by expectations, driven more by curiosity than by a deep emotional investment.

[ 01. August 2014, 12:20: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

If I needed counselling, I would go to a licensed professional counsellor not a member of the clergy.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I can't imagine many church members wanting to talk to a minister about 'spiritual' matters. Members don't always see the minister as a terribly spiritual person in any case. But the minister is always expected to be able to give comfort to people undergoing physical or some other kind of distress.

Sort of thinking out loud - Maybe we aren't good at knowing what "spiritual issues" are other than doubt God exists, which many church-goers wouldn't want to admit to their clergy?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Have ministers and/or churches unintentionally presented a wrong picture of what pastoral problems are? Are people unwilling to speak about their spirituality? I could think of other ideas ... but what do Shipmates think?

Great question. What exactly is pastoral care in the Christian context? Getting a biblical answer is not so easy IMO, because the role of 'pastor' (or 'shepherd') and the function of 'pastoring' (or 'shepherding') are not really described in great detail. Mostly, we have to extrapolate from what the role of a 1st century shepherd in Israel / Palestine actually was. Or so ISTM.

It makes more sense to me for the role of a church pastor / shepherd* to be specifically related to spiritual health and growth. As caissa said, we already have trained counsellors in our world; so church pastors / shepherds shouldn't try to offer that support, unless they've been trained to do so.

chris stiles - yes, I realise the Message Trust isn't a church; sorry for not being clear. I was just making the point that they are an example of Christians doing entrepreneurial, (what I'd describe as) apostolic things.

*By which I don't simply mean leader / minister / priest; I think using 'pastor' to mean one of these people confuses things rather dangerously.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Again, it's one of these both/and things.

I remember an Orthodox priest telling me of a particular bishop out in the Middle-East who had taken over from a long-line of moribund bishops ...

But he'd tackled things head on and the result is a whole range of education and youth-projects, social enterprises and support/funding initiatives.

It's turned around the life of his diocese, apparently, both spiritually and in what we might call more 'practical' terms - although I wouldn't want to introduce a false dichotomy between the two aspects.

Would this count as 'apostolic' or would it count as 'pastoral'? or is it an example of both?

On what the pastoral side means in our settings - given that there are alternatives in terms of counselling and much else besides ... I think SvitlanaV2 raises an interesting point on the MOTR approach and Chris Stiles raises some issues about the more 'vision-led' and 'driven' approach ...

In the former there can be little recognition of what we might call 'spiritual development'. And certainly, from what SvitlanaV2 says, little expectation for that to come from the clergy/ministers ...

I had to chuckle at the comment about people thinking that the ministers aren't as 'spiritual' as they are. [Big Grin]

That's almost counter-intuitive given the way these settings are viewed elsewhere - that they have professional clergy to do people's religion 'for them' ...

[Biased]

But I can see what she's getting at.

It does strike me, that the old 'father-confessor' and 'spiritual director' type roles within the more catholic and sacramental traditions might have a bearing here.

Arguably, in some of the neo-monastic movements - the Northumbria Community etc - elements of this are becoming available more broadly.

But that still doesn't resolve the issues on the ground at a parish or congregational or 'network' level.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Meanwhile, I do have a lot of sympathy with Caissa's comment.

It's confession time ...

About a year after I was made redundant I hit a period of depression. It knocked me for six. I was irritable with my wife and kids, couldn't concentrate, pretty much felt like shit all ways round. I was a failure, I had no idea where the next bit of work was coming from, everything I'd done had been weaving a rope of sand ... etc etc.

So I went to my GP who referred me to a professional counsellor on the NHS. Good ol' NHS. Within about 6 sessions of the 'talking cure' I was reckoned to be ok.

They were quite worried about me initially - not because I was potentially suicidal or anything, but the 'score' on the depression scale had been pretty high. It quickly dropped.

Black Dog still snuffles around occasionally but I feel better equipped to fend him off - and to stop feeding him.

Now - take this as it comes - but I had no intention to going to our local vicar because:

- He might have referred me to one of the house-groups (to which I don't belong).

- He'd have listened and been sympathetic but would have most likely come out with standard evangelical platitudes which would have given me the screaming ab-dabs.

That's not to say that I don't think that people should go to ministers, leaders or clergy - or to house-groups come to that - nor that I think that all Christian counselling initiatives are sub-standard.

No - but by the same token there was no way I was going to 'bother' the vicar or anyone else at my local parish church.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

My experience in several MOTR CofE churches with a number of different priests in charge is very different to that posited by Gamaliel and SvitlanaV2. I can name three different priests who have been involved in the formation and support of clergy or readers as part of their wider role in the diocese (this is across two dioceses I am thinking of here) and that has extended into their parish work. All three of these ministers encouraged discussion of spiritual matters, through their sermons, through the courses on offer, through the general conversations they had. It hasn't been unusual to have sermons discussing the spirituality of someone important to the parish who has just died, or has just moved on to ordination in any of these churches. Two of those ministers (I don't know for certain with the third) are also spiritual directors and provide spiritual direction services for people outside the parish.

And in those churches it is usual for people to move on to ordination or other services. From the local team of churches there are currently two people training for lay ministry, three people in ordination training and one person who was priested this summer. That's not including the curates in training (new one started in June, previous one finished at the end of April) or ordinands on placement (got another one of them currently).

I don't recognise these so-called MOTR churches that are moribund and failing that keep being conjured up.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think SvitlanaV2 raises an interesting point on the MOTR approach and Chris Stiles raises some issues about the more 'vision-led' and 'driven' approach ...

In the former there can be little recognition of what we might call 'spiritual development'. And certainly, from what SvitlanaV2 says, little expectation for that to come from the clergy/ministers ...

I had to chuckle at the comment about people thinking that the ministers aren't as 'spiritual' as they are.

That's almost counter-intuitive given the way these settings are viewed elsewhere - that they have professional clergy to do people's religion 'for them' ...

There might be a difference here between CofE MOTR and Methodist MOTR.

A Methodist minister might only be present at your church once a month, so s/he can't really represent the sum total of your 'religion'. The minister is the church's figurehead, but when there are so many other preachers, the 'source' of spiritual knowledge is somewhat split. And quite often, IME, the lay preachers are older and more mature as Christians than the ministers, so their spiritualty can't automatically be seen as lesser.

Regarding congregational views of the spirituality of the clergy, I think cultural differences play a part. Members of MOTR congregations are usually: considerably older than their clergy, more theologically 'traditional' than their clergy, and - if in the inner cities - possibly of lower social status and from a different ethno-cultural background than their clergy. All of these differences are likely to create tensions in how congregations judge the spirituality of their ministers, I should think.

There seems to be a bit more unity between evangelical ministers and their congregations (though I realise that this is a big generalisation), perhaps because if you really don't like your evangelical pastor you just leave the church. But some people in historical churches are very loyal to their 'brand', and won't let their disapproval (etc.) of a particular minister drive them away.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

I don't recognise these so-called MOTR churches that are moribund and failing that keep being conjured up.

On this occasion I wasn't talking about MOTR churches being 'moribund'.

However, you're very fortunate if things are going well for the MOTR churches where you are. Don't take that for granted.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I wasn't necessarily agreeing with SvitlanaV2, Curiosity Killed ... I was simply amused by her remarks that the people in the pews don't necessarily think of their ministers as being particularly 'spiritual' ...

I think, as SvitlanaV2 has identified, that there is a big difference between Methodist MOTR and Anglican MOTR ... and the latter - generally - would have a more structured approach to the aspects you've mentioned.

I'm not comparing the 'spiritualness' ratio of MOTR Methodism compared with MOTR Anglicanism - such comparisons are onerous.

No, I'm simply acknowledging that the Anglican approach to ministry would probably encourage the kind of thing you're talking about right across the board.

Like you, I can get a bit narked with the assumption that MOTR necessarily means moribund - but in fairness to SvitlanaV2 she has lived through a period of fairly rapid decline in her area.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

chris stiles - yes, I realise the Message Trust isn't a church; sorry for not being clear. I was just making the point that they are an example of Christians doing entrepreneurial, (what I'd describe as) apostolic things.

The reason I made that comment was that a church is a very different thing to some kind of mission organisation even one that is staffed by volunteer Christians.

I mean, if the argument is that it's so incredibly hard to get a few people to fill all the roles needed in a church, the problem is likely to lessen if you reduce the scope of what the church does.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

I don't know how much of an issue this is in practice, but it seems to me that, for CofE clergy, things may be complicated by the fact that they are expected to provide pastoral care for all their parishioners and not just those who are regular members of the congregation. Are non-churchgoers happy to talk to trained lay people or do they expect "the vicar"? Or does it not arise?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I remember an Orthodox priest telling me of a particular bishop out in the Middle-East who had taken over from a long-line of moribund bishops ...

But he'd tackled things head on and the result is a whole range of education and youth-projects, social enterprises and support/funding initiatives.

It's turned around the life of his diocese, apparently, both spiritually and in what we might call more 'practical' terms - although I wouldn't want to introduce a false dichotomy between the two aspects.

Would this count as 'apostolic' or would it count as 'pastoral'? or is it an example of both?

Wildly over-simplifying, I'd say the starting of such initiatives is an apostolic function, and the nurturing of people to play a part in helping the initiatives continue is a pastoral function. Terrific example, though; I like it a lot!

The point of the APEST thing is that two very different sets of skills are needed for the starting of initiatives and the sustaining of them. Also, giving freedom to people whose gifts are in the starting of new initiatives will probably lead to 'failure'; just like in the business world, not all church / Christian initiatives will last.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I mean, if the argument is that it's so incredibly hard to get a few people to fill all the roles needed in a church, the problem is likely to lessen if you reduce the scope of what the church does.

I'm sorry, but the language you're using makes me think we're still not really on the same page. I'm not talking about 'filling all the roles needed in a church'; I'm talking about giving people scope and support to try out new things - new businesses, new outreach activities, new teaching programmes etc. etc.

But yes, I would be tempted to reduce the scope of what churches do, at least under their specific banners - I think Christian-based organisations like the Message Trust doing entrepreneurial and community development activities while churches stay small and organic is a good model. But that's already been discussed recently on other threads ('What is church', I think) and I don't want to take this one further off topic...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It varies JoannaP. When our local vicar started here he upset a few people locally by not responding to requests for pastoral support.

As a good little evangelical, he felt his prime responsibility in that sense lay towards his congregation - not more widely across the parish. I'm afraid he dropped a few serious gaffes.

In small towns like this, there is still the expectation that 'the vicar' will provide some form of pastoral care to people in the parish who aren't at all involved in church ... although this expectation is receding.

To be fair to the bloke, he has now adopted a model whereby he does respond to these things - and they're not that regular, to be fair.

I won't give details but he did drop some catches. He seems to have learned some lessons though.

He has been quite creative too. To avoid being called out to visit little old ladies and administer the sacrament, he started a fortnightly informal communion service which doubles as a social time for old people. It relies heavily on volunteers giving lifts and so on but it seems to week well and is a life-line to the lonely and the otherwise house-bound.

Done the road at the more liberal parish, the vicar there is involved with all sorts of community things and believes in being there 'for everyone' irrespective of whether they actually attend his church. It doesn't seem to overwhelm him ... so I can't see it being particularly onerous in terms of time etc.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

Gamaleil
You can’t compare like that I’m afraid, even ‘down the road to each other’ parishes very widely, in terms of workload and different types of ministry. Just a few for instances - having a nursing home in your parish can make a large amount of work with the healthy, sick dead and dying. The munber of schools and to what extent the minister is involved in them And of course size of parish or whether there are multiple churches make vast differences.

There is always more that can be done and things that can be done differently, or better. Most clergy have to decide where the focus of their ministry is and will concentrate on areas that they are interested in or good at.

When it comes to pastoral issues – most clergy I know would not expect to ‘counsel’ people with specific problems, they know they are not qualified to do so. What they tend to do is to try and find the appropriate service for that person to use. Their pastoral support is a much more nebulous thing along the lines of being there, listening and praying. or even the practical of finding food/clothing/ whatever is necessary

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok, fair enough Zacchaeus.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0