Called to be a pastor

[bekkilyn]

Congrats to you sir! Once upon a time I was a UMC candidate for ordination but finishing up my military contract with the National Guard, College, and my theological leanings just didn't fit well within the vision of the UMC and it was with a great reluctance that I wrote my DS, and called my Pastor telling them I could not in good conscious serve the UMC as a Pastor. It was really hard too because my church, the DS, and DCOM were very spirit filled and friendly people. On a side note my first and only interview with DCOM was with a room with all female Elders and it was by far one of the most insightful/intimidating interview I've ever had especially with all of the questions they asked but overall it was a great experience.

Not a "sir" specifically, but thank you!

While I grew up Southern Baptist, I developed a more "Wesleyan" theology on my own, and then after a time when I had stopped going to church and was looking for new one, much of Methodist theology just fit with my own faith and then as I read more about the Wesleys and Methodist history, the UMC seemed to be the closest match for me, even if I tend to encourage more "Pentacostal" style participation during services and still throw in few altar calls/invitations from time to time as per Baptists!

No human-created institution is going to be perfect, but provided that I can continue my calling to proclaim the gospel and help people develop a better relationship with Christ, then much of what disagreements tend to go on in the "larger" organization have a lot less importance.

 

[SwordmanJr]

How can I know if I am called to be a pastor?

What you described is pretty much the usual, institutional trap that most "pastors" fall into because they don't fully understand the REAL responsibility the Lord has placed upon leaders. Those "pastors" out there who aren't trying to put themselves out of a job aren't worth their weight in salt....meaning that if they aren't striving to raise up each member of the congregation to maturity in Christ Jesus, then they're doing nothing more but holding those people in stasis by meeting out morsels of teaching each week, at various depths, hoping the people will keep coming back and putting money into the passing plate to support their hireling careers and the plush facility.

Spiritual giants do not seek a following, but rather to help others grow in stature toward the full stature of Christ Jesus. That doesn't happen by sitting in a pew for 70 years listening to sermon after sermon. If you have no experience nor desire to disciple others to spiritual maturity, then by all means, seek a position standing behind a pulpit, captivating audiences with your skills at titillating rhetoric that's in keeping with the traditional status quo of churchianity.

There are seriously strong emotions out there for the traditional "pastor" job as it exists within modern and historic churchianity, which fosters the "pastor's" role in keeping the masses in slow-mode growth. There are those who will defend the status quo to the death, and with no regard whatsoever for the thought that they may be more wrong than they realize.

So, my encouragement is pretty much in line with what some have said, which is to seek FIRST the Lord's direction, and follow ONLY that. It's unfortunate that so many will go through the motions of seeking the Lord's thoughts on a matter, clouded with their own desires, with personal desires remaining stronger than that still, small voice, and inevitably going with their own desires, thinking it came from the Lord.

Jr.

 

[Ronald]

The Bible has to be deeply examined. I just want to know how I can know if being a pastor is really my calling.

You answered your own question.
How long have you been a Christian and how much knowledge of scripture do you have? People around you may be correct, that this is your calling. Many non-denominational Churches do not require education, only a willingness to serve and the basics. If you are a missionary in a village and you are they only one they have, then you share and teach what you know.
A person come out of prison and start a church. That's a well intentioned idea BUT, DON'T YOU THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE A DEGREE FROM A SEMINARY? You can't be a priest in a Catholic Church unless you have the required degree. You must know and have studied the Bible, Greek and Hebrew, all the different doctrines, history, etc. You need to be able to exegete scripture. You need to know the history behind it like the back of your hand to be a GOOD PRIEST. Don't you think people deserve the best you can be? Is that today or after you get a better handle on it?
Most Protestant churches require at least a Master's degree in theology.
You want to make sure, what you teach is sound. David Koresh though what he was teaching was sound and people followed him. But when his teachings were put up against real scholars, they were flawed. But his flock didn't know. They followed because they couldn't argue with him since I believe he memorized the Bible. Memorization is good but ALL SCRITPURE IS SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED AND David did not have this discernment, just superficial knowledge that he twisted and distorted.
The disciples, after 3 1/2 years of being taught by God Himself, I would say had a Master's or Doctorate degree comparatively.
Of course, being filled with the Holy Spirit is sufficient and the Bible even says you don't need a teacher, since you have Him. But most of the congregation want to be taught by a SPIRITUALLY FILLED PASTOR WHO IS EDUCATED AS WELL.
Besides, you will be put to the test by your congregation with questions that you may not be able to answer readily.
My Pastor initially was a Pharmacist, had PHD. His Pastor chose him to be a pastor, knew he was a high communicator BUT REQUIRED THAT HE GET HIS MASTERS IN THEOLOGY. He was exemplary, standing up there with only an outline, how he masterfully talk for an hour just on one verse! The history, everything, the culture, came to life and he backed it up with supporting scriptures, different views, especially if it concerned a controversial topic. To me he was better than John MacArthur.
Zac Nazarian is his name, of Hope Chapel, Hermosa Beach. Check him out, listen __ that's a pastor.
Hope Chapel

 

[Paidiske]

Those "pastors" out there who aren't trying to put themselves out of a job aren't worth their weight in salt....meaning that if they aren't striving to raise up each member of the congregation to maturity in Christ Jesus, then they're doing nothing more but holding those people in stasis by meeting out morsels of teaching each week, at various depths, hoping the people will keep coming back and putting money into the passing plate to support their hireling careers and the plush facility.

This reminds me of a cartoon I saw once, drawn by a teacher, which sums up so much of the experience of many in ministry. It had a picture of a cocoon, closed and unmoving, and the text said something like:

Caterpillars go into the cocoon, metamorphose, and emerge a butterfly full of strength and grace.
'
Why do you refuse to metamorphose?

 

[SwordmanJr]

This reminds me of a cartoon I saw once, drawn by a teacher, which sums up so much of the experience of many in ministry. It had a picture of a cocoon, closed and unmoving, and the text said something like:

Caterpillars go into the cocoon, metamorphose, and emerge a butterfly full of strength and grace.
'
Why do you refuse to metamorphose?

The problem I described is so much bigger than anecdotal slight of hand. That you missed the depths of what I described speaks loud volumes to your lack of experience and the presence of blinders covering the sides of your vision. Being so much older than you, and having traveled the world observing, talking, experiencing, living and suffering with Christians of so many backgrounds, it is without apology that I share what I have seen all these decades.

Jr.

 

[Paidiske]

I didn't miss the depths of what you described. I saw someone blaming pastors for the problems of the church; I shared that, from the other side, it is easy to blame congregations for the problems of the church. In reality, of course, all have a part to play; but if we play the blame game instead, we are unlikely to make much progress.

 

[SwordmanJr]

I didn't miss the depths of what you described. I saw someone blaming pastors for the problems of the church; I shared that, from the other side, it is easy to blame congregations for the problems of the church. In reality, of course, all have a part to play; but if we play the blame game instead, we are unlikely to make much progress.

Let's look at this with a more holistic vantage point, shall we?

Famous leaders are today bemoaning the huge number of youth who are going to secular universities and coming out atheists. a VERY high percentage of them have stated that they were in "church" for as long as they can remember, attending Sunday schools, services, etc., etc. They represent a somewhat broad sweep of denominations.

Now, there are a number of campuses that have Christian outreaches to freshmen who are believers, and take them into the club to try and keep them grounded and to equip them with ways to deal with the professors who spend much of the class periods trying to drive them into atheism, and undermine their faith with credible-sounding arguments. My hat is off to those groups.

That's one example among so many. However, to belittle the clear evidence for failure by calling what I pointed out merely a "blame game", that is the usual dodge I've heard from escapists who will defend the status quo at all costs, no matter what it does to their own standing in the eyes of observers.

Tell me, how much time do the institutions need to get it together and deal with this and so many other problems that are systemically a part of their makeup? Ten more years? A hundred? A thousand? Without fingering the problem and the people who are failing to mitigate it, how will there ever be any momentum to drive organizations and their leadership into the understanding for the need to change and aspire? Institutionalists have been venerating tradition at the expense of turning a blind eye to the problems, and thus never admitting the need for some serious changes in methodology?

Now, I can accept that you personally may not see any problems since you apparently don't like anyone pointing out the problems and the people behind them. If the need for change doesn't start with the top leader, then where is it supposed to begin? You can't fire the congregation. Do we blame the ushers? How about the volunteers who scrub the sacred "church" toilets and urinals for free? Perhaps I'm asking this at the same level of absurdity as your observation about pinpointing the problem people in all this.

I will grant you that it is indeed correct to say that some people in congregations are themselves to blame for their own lack of growth. That is understood. However, it's also true that those people will not be missed if only the "squatter pastors" would start doing their job and push congregations toward the precipice to either spread their wings and fly, or plummet to the rocks below. The lazy congregants would not be missed if they are offended by the push and leave. Good riddance.

Jr.

 

[Paidiske]

Tell me, how much time do the institutions need to get it together and deal with this and so many other problems that are systemically a part of their makeup? Ten more years? A hundred? A thousand? Without fingering the problem and the people who are failing to mitigate it, how will there ever be any momentum to drive organizations and their leadership into the understanding for the need to change and aspire? Institutionalists have been venerating tradition at the expense of turning a blind eye to the problems, and thus never admitting the need for some serious changes in methodology?

Now, I can accept that you personally may not see any problems since you apparently don't like anyone pointing out the problems and the people behind them. If the need for change doesn't start with the top leader, then where is it supposed to begin? You can't fire the congregation. Do we blame the ushers? How about the volunteers who scrub the sacred "church" toilets and urinals for free? Perhaps I'm asking this at the same level of absurdity as your observation about pinpointing the problem people in all this.

I will grant you that it is indeed correct to say that some people in congregations are themselves to blame for their own lack of growth. That is understood. However, it's also true that those people will not be missed if only the "squatter pastors" would start doing their job and push congregations toward the precipice to either spread their wings and fly, or plummet to the rocks below. The lazy congregants would not be missed if they are offended by the push and leave. Good riddance.

I don't think it's so simple. The institutions are made up of the very people who sit in the pews. Leaders don't have the power to lead people where they don't want to be led. In my experience, leaders are desperately pleading for change, and congregations are resisting because they want things to stay the way they are, or even better, go back to the way they were.

And it's all well and good to say that some won't be missed, but in real life people don't think that way. Recently, I have been trying to convince the key lay leaders in my parish about the necessity of a particular thing. They have been refusing to countenance it because "If we do that, people might leave!" And they are not prepared to take the risk of someone leaving over what might be there to be gained.

(It's not a matter of laziness, either. Most of these folks are prepared to do quite a lot. It's a question of whether they're putting their energy into the right things...)

But, in all of this...

Church is changing. I have no doubt that the church I retire from will look very different from the church I was ordained into. But I can look at that and trust that Christ is still at work in it. I can see people coming to faith, growing in maturity, and being effective in mission. And as long as Christ hasn't given up on the Church, I figure I probably shouldn't, yet, either.

 

[SwordmanJr]

I don't think it's so simple. The institutions are made up of the very people who sit in the pews. Leaders don't have the power to lead people where they don't want to be led.

There you have it, folks. Here is one who says that the fault is yours for your lack of growth. YOU are all to blame for pastoral failures, because allegedly all "pastors" want change and growth to happen for all.

Unfortunately for you, I have been around too long and seen too much to buy into this. You do not represent the totality of the pastorate. I have not seen every group in every corner of the earth. Far from it. I am only speaking to the generalized panorama of what I have seen for myself in many other nations besides just the U.S., inclusive of many, many denominations. There are indeed a few ministers who want the congregants to grow expoentially, but they are the exception rather than the rule. In word they all talk about their desire for the people to grow, but in practice they push for nothing of the kind.

In my experience, leaders are desperately pleading for change, and congregations are resisting because they want things to stay the way they are, or even better, go back to the way they were.

Perhaps it can be said that the congregations of which you speak don't even know nor understand the necessity for growth and maturity. Sometimes they need a mirror held up to them to see what they really look like. Sometimes they have to be shoved out into that wilderness to begin to see what midgets they are, and how crippled they are. If that minister is fired for daring to instigate such a push, then the Lord will certainly take care of them. I personally would put them and their family up until they get their feet on the ground. Itinerant ministers are worthy of support.

And it's all well and good to say that some won't be missed, but in real life people don't think that way. Recently, I have been trying to convince the key lay leaders in my parish about the necessity of a particular thing. They have been refusing to countenance it because "If we do that, people might leave!" And they are not prepared to take the risk of someone leaving over what might be there to be gained.

Hmm. "Lay leaders"? You're being stymied by "lay leaders," as if they count for anything significant in the whole scheme of necessity for leadership? Where's the spine in that? Are there not those within that "parish" willing to step up and take the place of the spineless whelps who buck against what is needed for growth in spiritual stature (if that's an element of what you are referring to)? Come on! If the leadership isn't willing to step up and BE the leaders they were hired to be, then they too should be sent out the door with massive boot prints on the seats of their britches!

(It's not a matter of laziness, either. Most of these folks are prepared to do quite a lot. It's a question of whether they're putting their energy into the right things...)

Again, where's the spine in the leadership to do what they may know is necessary?

Church is changing.

Yes. The "change" to be more "culturally relevant" is indeed changing the face of institutionalism. As it moves more and more toward worldly relevance, it becomes more a tool of Satan. The Church is comprised of PEOPLE, not the institutions and those who meet within them. The Church populates some of the pews and chairs within all the institutions, but the Church is not defined by the institutional model and all its theological, practical and real estate trappings. The Church lives and breathes in spite of money because she is a living entity with the Lord as her head. Institutionalism collapses under its own weight in the absense of money, and therefore power.

Jr.

 

[Paidiske]

Hmm. "Lay leaders"? You're being stymied by "lay leaders," as if they count for anything significant in the whole scheme of necessity for leadership? Where's the spine in that? Are there not those within that "parish" willing to step up and take the place of the spineless whelps who buck against what is needed for growth in spiritual stature (if that's an element of what you are referring to)? Come on! If the leadership isn't willing to step up and BE the leaders they were hired to be, then they too should be sent out the door with massive boot prints on the seats of their britches!

I don't know what kind of church polity you're used to, but in my church, there is a very clear legal framework around what I'm responsible for, what lay people are responsible for, and what there is shared responsibility for. When it comes to the mission of the parish, it's very clearly shared responsibility.

And no, when you have an average Sunday attendance of 40 people or so, and most of them over retirement age, you don't necessarily have a queue of people willing to take on those roles of lay leadership. As it is we have people covering more than they should because we don't have enough people willing to do the work of leadership.

And there's no suggestion of being hired; in a small parish like this, I'm the only person who is paid. The rest volunteer; and when you rely on volunteers you take whatever you get offered, with gratitude.

Yes. The "change" to be more "culturally relevant" is indeed changing the face of institutionalism.

Not at all what I meant. I was referring much more to the reshaping of the institution.

 

[SwordmanJr]

I don't know what kind of church polity you're used to, but in my church, there is a very clear legal framework around what I'm responsible for, what lay people are responsible for, and what there is shared responsibility for. When it comes to the mission of the parish, it's very clearly shared responsibility.

Oh, I have seen all kinds of variants through the decades of my travels domestically and abroad. Believe me when I say that there are many, many variants. That is the earmark of the institutional model, and it proves that model is not built upon the Bible. That's not to say it's anti-biblical, for we have the freedom to form collective frameworks of our choosing, each microcosmic grouping doing whatever it so desires. Some go so far as laying claim to the idea that THEY are the most biblical model with the most biblical collection of doctrinal beliefs, which is a pathetic exercise in self-delusion when we more closely examine the totality of their constructs.

And there's no suggestion of being hired; in a small parish like this, I'm the only person who is paid.

Paid.....hired....as if there's a difference.....not really.

The rest volunteer; and when you rely on volunteers you take whatever you get offered, with gratitude.

Isn't it wonderful how the Lord deals with us on an individual basis? The Lord who sees individual sparrows that fall to the ground looks to us, the creations in His own image, and expresses His tender-loving care for each one.

Not at all what I meant. I was referring much more to the reshaping of the institution.

It would be interesting to see the caliber of people in that parish, as to their spiritual stature. I've met many people who sat in pews for 70 years of their lives, having heard thousands of sermons, sat through decades of Sunday school lessons, and who were as blind to the depths of life in Christ Jesus.

Now to make sure I'm not misunderstood.....those who have their cemetery and Bible college degrees from various institutions, with heads full of Bible knowledge, trivia and commentary. The idea that they are therefore automatically qualified as leaders within the Church, that is a grossly misplaced assumption. They may be qualified to lead within institutional walls of many a man-made institutional (c)hurch organizations, but not THE (C)hurch.

I have a lawyer friend whose son just went through a major denominational, Bible cemetery school, got his degree, and thinks he's fully ready to be a leader among "Christians". As legalistic as he is, he can still Bible-trivialize circles around me with many tidbits therein that he has learned, but when it comes to vision and discernment, he is utterly lacking. His "knowledge" of the Bible, although extensive in specific areas of study therein, lacks the insight and experiential living of the totality. He is now just another hireling looking to fulfill his institutional dream most assume is God's calling upon them, to one day become the "senior pastor" over his following called a "congregation."

Unless he accepts God's TRUE calling upon those who serve a FUNCTION most call "leadership" in the Church, he will be just another failure in the company of hundreds of thousands of others....perhaps millions. He too will likely blame his followers like you have, claiming he has done all he can, but is faced with all manner of irrational resistance. That is exactly the DNA of Satan's handiwork among the people. Satan does not want the people to be put on notice their need to soar like eagles rather than laying around in the nest as aged, wrinkled up eaglets with very little for wing feathers.

Maybe you don't even believe in the existence of Satan, which is exactly what he wants, but his influences are vast and far-reaching, with the people remaining sheeple, which plays well into his schemes. His servants work hard in the lives of people who lack the vision to see his fingerprints upon them. Spiritual giants are the ones Satan hates the most, and attacks with unrelenting barrages. Paul made that clear through his epistles.

So, the question remains.....what are YOU going to do about it? We can roll over and play dead while claiming that change is taking place, or we can shape the change in directions that are needful in the lives of a people who need to spread their wings and exercise them in preparation for flight.....

Jr.

 

[Paidiske]

Paid.....hired....as if there's a difference.....not really.

My point was that the lay leaders with whom I work give of their time; they're not paid for it (you said something about being the leaders they were hired to be; and I was pointing out that they are not hired).

Now to make sure I'm not misunderstood.....those who have their cemetery and Bible college degrees from various institutions, with heads full of Bible knowledge, trivia and commentary. The idea that they are therefore automatically qualified as leaders within the Church, that is a grossly misplaced assumption. They may be qualified to lead within institutional walls of many a man-made institutional (c)hurch organizations, but not THE (C)hurch.

A theology degree is good but it doesn't make someone a leader in the Church, I agree. Although I find using the term "cemetery" for seminary both inaccurate and offensive. While it had its problems, seminary gave me a solid formation for ministry and was a strongly life-giving and sustaining experience.

He too will likely blame his followers like you have,

Except I didn't. I pointed out that neither clergy nor laity alone can resolve the problems of the church, but that we need to work together.

So, the question remains.....what are YOU going to do about it? We can roll over and play dead while claiming that change is taking place, or we can shape the change in directions that are needful in the lives of a people who need to spread their wings and exercise them in preparation for flight.....

Bluntly, I'm not accountable to you. I pour myself into the work of prayer, listening, teaching, encouraging, equipping and supporting the people in this parish. You can go on making cheap pot shots from the peanut gallery, but you'd be better off focusing on the community Christ has placed you in, and your contribution to it.

 

[SwordmanJr]

My point was that the lay leaders with whom I work give of their time; they're not paid for it (you said something about being the leaders they were hired to be; and I was pointing out that they are not hired).

I was talking about YOU. You said that YOU are the only one getting a salary. I got that. Why you would think I ignored what you said is something I'm still puzzling.

A theology degree is good but it doesn't make someone a leader in the Church, I agree. Although I find using the term "cemetery" for seminary both inaccurate and offensive. While it had its problems, seminary gave me a solid formation for ministry and was a strongly life-giving and sustaining experience.

It gave you a "solid formation for ministry"? What does that mean? As to what appears to be my choice of words being "offensive," What is the height of your stature in belief for you to be so easily offended? Really? I've seen BLM followers who spend all their time looking for something they can point their fingers at, claiming to be offended. Come on! I sometimes habitually misspell words, and my grammar and spelling correction software puts in what it is programmed to assume I meant. I look at the keyboard while typing. I never learned the skill of typing while looking at the screen, and I don't always go back and proof-read what I typed.

Except I didn't. I pointed out that neither clergy nor laity alone can resolve the problems of the church, but that we need to work together.

Do I have to go back and quote you saying that it was the congregation and "lay" leaders? Really?

Tell me, what does the term "leader" mean to you? If you're not going to LEAD the people, then why are you there? Why are they paying you? Are you something less than a leader? Please define for us your function if not the "leadership" of the congregation. In the totality of what you've said thus far, in relation to the titles and key words you've used, I get he impression there's either miscommunication going on here, misunderstanding on my part, or the labels and terms you're using have much looser definitions than what I'm used to in conversational language.

Bluntly, I'm not accountable to you. I pour myself into the work of prayer, listening, teaching, encouraging, equipping and supporting the people in this parish. You can go on making cheap pot shots from the peanut gallery, but you'd be better off focusing on the community Christ has placed you in, and your contribution to it.

Wow. Petulance. Not something I was expecting from a "leader". Look, I tend to write matter-of-factly, which sometimes comes across with tonal qualities that are not representative of my true, inner thinking. You cannot see my facial expressions nor hear the inflections in my voice. I never intended to give the impression that you are at all beholden, or "accountable" to me. Your attitude in that arena is consistent with what's so wrong with most of modern Christianity and other religions. The masses today have lost a feel for a more tribal approach to interrelationships together. Modern man has become so fiercely individualistic in his outlook that your microcosmic worlds mostly collide rather than mesh when someone dares challenge you all in ways you don't like. Reflective thought seems to be a lost gift, or a shunned one.

Jr.

 

[Paidiske]

I was talking about YOU. You said that YOU are the only one getting a salary. I got that. Why you would think I ignored what you said is something I'm still puzzling.

Back in post #29 you were talking about lay leaders and said "If the leadership isn't willing to step up and BE the leaders they were hired to be," implying that they were hired/paid. I pointed out that they aren't.

It gave you a "solid formation for ministry"? What does that mean?

It means the experience was about more than filling my head with facts; it was about shaping me as a person. Including things like resourcing a disciplined and fruitful prayer life, and equipping me to reflect helpfully on real life issues, and so on.

Do I have to go back and quote you saying that it was the congregation and "lay" leaders? Really?

I originally said in post #26: "I saw someone blaming pastors for the problems of the church; I shared that, from the other side, it is easy to blame congregations for the problems of the church. In reality, of course, all have a part to play; but if we play the blame game instead, we are unlikely to make much progress."

Tell me, what does the term "leader" mean to you? If you're not going to LEAD the people, then why are you there? Why are they paying you? Are you something less than a leader? Please define for us your function if not the "leadership" of the congregation. In the totality of what you've said thus far, in relation to the titles and key words you've used, I get he impression there's either miscommunication going on here, misunderstanding on my part, or the labels and terms you're using have much looser definitions than what I'm used to in conversational language.

Alright, let me ask you this. Do you imagine that I, as a parish priest, can tell people what attitudes to have, what to think, what to say, and what to do... and they will just do it, say it, think it?

Because that's not reality. In reality, for example, it's a common aphorism in ministry that you have to tell a congregation basically the same thing every way you can for a year before they start to integrate it into their own understanding.

Church leadership is patient work. People are free to ignore as much of what you say as they wish (except in very particular, narrow circumstances). And they do! Just a few weeks ago I had to say to my key lay leaders, "The attitudes driving some of the decisions being made here will eventually kill this church." I know it to be true, but so far, they're still deep, deep in denial. So, I do what I can and challenge that denial when I can and have to wait for the penny to drop. I can't force them to change.

And I suggest that if you want to engage in shared reflective thought, you find ways to phrase your reflections which come across a lot less like an attack.

 

[bekkilyn]

I have to wonder if swordmanjr is out there in the front lines actually being a church leader and backing up all of his criticism with real action that's producing real spiritual fruit, or is he instead just basically ranting from the armchair about what everyone else is doing wrong. Problem solving, including in the churches, oftentimes starts with a mirror.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Back in post #29 you were talking about lay leaders and said "If the leadership isn't willing to step up and BE the leaders they were hired to be," implying that they were hired/paid. I pointed out that they aren't.

That was the error of contextual proximity on my part. Sorry about that. However, I meant what I said in that I got it. I understood the lay people were not paid when you stated that. I've never seen an institution where they were, unless hired to some other specific task such as performing the oversight over the laymen as a full time position.

Alright, let me ask you this. Do you imagine that I, as a parish priest, can tell people what attitudes to have, what to think, what to say, and what to do... and they will just do it, say it, think it?

Oh, heavens no. I would never suggest that level of mind control over others as is seen within cults. A very effective leadership model I've observed in some places is when the "leadership" states to the people, "Of necessity, here's what we're going to have to do, and why....." Some of the people may state their sustained objections, but overall the general populace will back the leader they hired to function in that capacity. That's why I asked you about your expected function for which those people hired you.

It's granted that there will always be the more abrasive, resistant "peanut gallery" (a term you used before) who will buck leaders at almost every intersection, making it look like you've driven into a dead end. Sometimes you just have to ignore the nay-sayers when their objections are irrational. Sometimes they leave, hopefully without letting the door slap their fannys on the way out.

Because that's not reality. In reality, for example, it's a common aphorism in ministry that you have to tell a congregation basically the same thing every way you can for a year before they start to integrate it into their own understanding.

That's your reality? Hmm. All I can say to that is the many, many experiences of countless other ministers with whom I have come into contact have no such fetters upon doing what they know is needful. That's not to say that situations don't arise that are not at all a priority for time, and that require more time for the people to consider and plan out a collective strategy, but as a "common" thing.....that's quite foreign to the host of men I've talked with over the decades who lead their organizations in directions they deem as necessary as leaders.

Just a few weeks ago I had to say to my key lay leaders, "The attitudes driving some of the decisions being made here will eventually kill this church." I know it to be true, but so far, they're still deep, deep in denial. So, I do what I can and challenge that denial when I can and have to wait for the penny to drop. I can't force them to change.

(snicker, snicker) Sounds like you need someone like that one preacher/priest dude I ran across some years ago (who went to prison ten years for money laundering, but is now out with yet another cultic following). When he couldn't get the board on his side of things, he simply fired them and hired back a group of "yes" men and women. He gets things done.....his way....but his cultic following is growing by leaps and bounds again. I would never have thought that a little dictator like him could surround himself with such gullible people in this age of habitual indifference and apathy, but he has bucked the trend. Many people attend churchianity wanting to fade into the wood work, and then leave when it's over without any accountability. But that dude....whew! He's a firecracker who gets people all stirred up to the point that he's able to accomplish feats that most others could never get away with.

I'm not suggesting you go that route. Those older types may not respond well.....if at all. I suppose you have what works for you, whether your happy with it or not.

Jr.

 

[Paidiske]

Oh, heavens no. I would never suggest that level of mind control over others as is seen within cults. A very effectiev leadership model I've observed in some places is when the "leadership" states to the people, "Of neessity, here's what we going to have to do, and why....." Some of the people may state their sustained objections, but overall the general populace will back the leader they hired to function in that capacity.

It's granted that there will always be the more abrasive, resistant "peanut gallery" (a term you used before) who will buck leaders at almost every intersection, making it look like you've driven into a dead end. Sometimes you just have to ignore the nay-sayers when their objections are irrational. Sometimes they leave, hopefully without letting the door slap their fannys on the way out.

'

Yeah, I've tried the "Of necessity, here's what we're going to have to do, and why..." It seldom works well. People don't like change and will fight it as much as they can, even when it is desperately needed.

That's your reality? Hmm. All I can say to that is the many, many experiences of countless other ministers with whom I have come into contact have no such fetters upon doing what they know is needful. That's not to say that situations don't arise that are not at all a priority for time, and that require more time for the people to consider and plan out a collective strategy, but as a "common" thing.....that's quite foreign to the host of men I've talked with over the decades who lead their organizations in directions they deem as necessary as leaders.

It's not at all uncommon in my context. Across denominations, clergy of different ages and both men and women often share extremely similar frustrations when we have a chance to speak candidly about our experiences.

I suppose you have what works for you, whether your happy with it or not.

Doesn't work nearly as well as I'd like, but there's no sense pretending the situation is other than it is.

 

[SwordmanJr]

'

Yeah, I've tried the "Of necessity, here's what we're going to have to do, and why..." It seldom works well. People don't like change and will fight it as much as they can, even when it is desperately needed.

I accept your words that what you're saying is your personal experience, but not that of so many others. This might be an opportunity for you to seek out WHY it rarely works for you. To say that ,"It seldom works well," that is the exact opposite of what I heard time and time again from leaders in places like China, India, Parkistan, Ethiopia, on and on the list goes. Those men were greatly humbled by how well it almost always worked. When it didn't, they discovered those were times when the Lord brought to them object lessons. Was it because they allowed the Lord Himself to be center-stage of it all? Well, I did not have enought time to spend with any one of the single men who led their respective disciples (not congregation, but rather DISCIPLES), but what they conveyed was a profound, life-changing reality for me when they pointed ONLY to Christ Jesus after the Lord empowered them to work through the difficulties and the needs.

It's not at all uncommon in my context. Across denominations, clergy of different ages and both men and women often share extremely similar frustrations when we have a chance to speak candidly about our experiences.

So, in your circle, there are leaders who express frustrations for not getting things done the way they want? Has anyone ever counseled them, or do they consider themselves above that? Granted, there are all kinds of parachurch organization leaders out there who will caudle whiners and seemingly powerless leaders, giving them all kinds of psychological reasoning, sprinkled with spiritual language, as to why they are "spinning their wheels," which serves to greatly placate the leaders.....until they run aground of yet another issue that's close to their heart for what they want to get done in the congregation.

I have to also say that your revelations are quite foreign to not only my experience, but that of many, many others. I've always heard people are the same the world over. It sounds like you're describing your congregation as being other than the rest. Does that have a ring for a deeper implcation to you?

Doesn't work nearly as well as I'd like, but there's no sense pretending the situation is other than it is.

Jesus Himself walked away from people who refused to go where He led. At times, He hopped into a boat and sailed beyond their clutches. In other words, if it's really that close to hopelessness as you describe, then perhaps the actions of Jesus should be your guide. Leave those stones behind to weather in the sand-blasting winds of the desert. Go out and start making tents, and influencing people by some other model.....or reach out to the One who does have the power and the know-how to motivate people in ways you could never imagine in your human thinking.

Look, it is written that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church. Gates don't go out and assault you, YOU go out and do the assaulting. Get the picture? It is also written that we can do ALL things, not most, not some, but ALL things through Christ Jesus who strengthens us. (Phil. 4:13) Is the Bible true, or is it not? Does it only apply to some, or does it apply to all? What's the hold up? Tell me, because I'm really interested in why it's not working where you are compared to almost all others I know.

Jr.

 

[Paidiske]

So, in your circle, there are leaders who express frustrations for not getting things done the way they want? Has anyone ever counseled them, or do they consider themselves above that? Granted, there are all kinds of parachurch organization leaders out there who will caudle whiners and seemingly powerless leaders, giving them all kinds of psychological reasoning, sprinkled with spiritual language, as to why they are "spinning their wheels," which serves to greatly placate the leaders.....until they run aground of yet another issue that's close to their heart for what they want to get done in the congregation.

It's not a matter of "getting things done." You want someone who can "get things done," organise chaos into a system, tackle tasks, and whip through a to-do list, that's no problem at all.

But getting a whole community of people to own a shared vision and collaborate on it... that is a whole other kettle of fish.

And sure, there's no end of supervisors and spiritual directors and bishops and coaches and mentors and all the rest - how well I know - but I haven't found that anybody has any sort of magic bullet solution.

I have to also say that your revelations are quite foreign to not only my experience, but that of many, many others. I've always heard people are the same the world over. It sounds like you're describing your congregation as being other than the rest. Does that have a ring for a deeper implcation to you?

You just listed a bunch of countries which are not secular, first-world, western, post-Christian societies. I'd suggest that their social context provides them with some very different issues than the ones we face.

Jesus Himself walked away from people who refused to go where He led. At times, He hopped into a boat and sailed beyond their clutches. In other words, if it's really that close to hopelessness as you describe, then perhaps the actions of Jesus should be your guide. Leave those stones behind to weather in the sand-blasting winds of the desert. Go out and start making tents, and influencing people by some other model.....or reach out to the One who does have the power and the know-how to motivate people in ways you could never imagine in your human thinking.

I'm where God called me to be, and I'm going to serve faithfully here until God calls me to be somewhere else. God is still at work in these people, and while God hasn't abandoned them, I'm not going to, either.

They do need to learn to build fresh relationships with their local community, but that's part of what I'm here to try to lead and teach them to do.

What's the hold up? Tell me, because I'm really interested in why it's not working where you are compared to almost all others I know.

I don't know enough about the other places you know to be able to compare. I can tell you that here, the church has become lethally curled in on itself, and uncurling it seems to be an exercise in patience and hope.

 

[BPerry]

What an interesting thread, with diverse opinions. One thing I feel was left out. God opens doors he wants open, and closes those He want's closed. I had all the educational qualifications to be ordained, I did everything from clean the church, to hauling the elderly to their doctors appointments.
The pastors that were mentoring me were convinced I had been called, and they were right, but I hadn't been called to be a pastor, but an evangelist to the homeless, prisoners, drug addicts, homosexuals, prostitutes, and the ones others say are hard to love. The rewards are few, with little or no recondition, but the few salvation's make it all worthwhile.
If your heart is open to serve wherever God leads you without reservations, then your heart is in the right place.