There's a lot of truth to this...

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,734
10,041
78
Auckland
✟380,260.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Firstly, there is the entirely Biblical Principle that the labourer is worth their hire.

Agree... I have gone to great lengths to explain that a healthy Christian family fellowship will always make sure all are supported as they were in Acts

Secondly, there is a generally accepted notion that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

Paul didn't view it that way...

Thirdly the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

Agree - no problem there.

The charismatic movement, to the extent that it was of the Spirit showed these things, however like many good things, it also suffered from the stains of human sinfulness, and we also saw pride, division, arrogance, ungraciousness, unkindness and licence. This is a sad reflection on the truth of human investment and not in any way intended to be a quenching of the Spirit.

Totally agree - no move of God is perfect in this life.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,734
10,041
78
Auckland
✟380,260.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You didn't just come in to encourage by testifying, though. You used that to argue that - for example - paid ministry is bad and wrong, that paid ministers in institutional churches are stifling and holding back the work of the Spirit. You blamed us for the problems in the church but have not demonstrated any reason why that is a fair or accurate thing to do.

Sorry this is blatantly untrue. My position has been that when God moves sovereignly as He did, Love breaks out and opens the way for us to review the way we do things. Generosity abounds and stipends are not needed as in early Acts.
I have never blamed anyone for anything.

If you want to bring such accusations please supply a quote.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,734
10,041
78
Auckland
✟380,260.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In this thread, I'm not so much afraid as incredibly annoyed at what I have definitely seen as a direct attack. Your posts have come across as a real slap in the face to all the hard-working, dedicated, faithful, Spirit-led people in ministry around the world.

Really...

Maybe you need to take a breath - that is a big call.

It also does not reflect my heart...

I present something beautiful with considerable detail and...

BLAM !!!!!
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,226
19,070
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,506,551.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Sorry this is blatantly untrue. My position has been that when God moves sovereignly as He did, Love breaks out and opens the way for us to review the way we do things. Generosity abounds and stipends are not needed as in early Acts.
I have never blamed anyone for anything.

If you want to bring such accusations please supply a quote.

Take post #15, where you said: "This may be easier to achieve if the leaders were not paid in the usual sense and depended on the collective support from the congregation. In this culture all servants would be on the same plane and working together."

Which says:

- Leaders being paid is bad, and is holding back achieving a healthy culture.
- Our current culture means we are not "on the same plane" (accusation of clericalism) and that the contributions of the laity are inhibited rather than encouraged as part of working together.

And then in post #17 you contrast the current situation with the church in Acts and say they didn't have issues, so (implication) it's our fault for not just being like them, that we have issues.

Even in your last post, the claim that "love breaks out" when God moves is an implied criticism that love is not part of our life together now. Pitting generosity and stipends as mutually exclusive rather than seeing the latter as one expression of the former says that there is not generosity in congregations which do pay a stipend.

And so on. The whole tenor of your contributions has been along this line.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,734
10,041
78
Auckland
✟380,260.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Take post #15, where you said: "This may be easier to achieve if the leaders were not paid in the usual sense and depended on the collective support from the congregation. In this culture all servants would be on the same plane and working together."

Which says:

- Leaders being paid is bad, and is holding back achieving a healthy culture.
- Our current culture means we are not "on the same plane" (accusation of clericalism) and that the contributions of the laity are inhibited rather than encouraged as part of working together.

I am not saying that - you are.

Other readers agree with me that you put your spin on what I say.

I trust readers have been encouraged by what I have written and invite comment.

Be at peace as His Spirit further opens our eyes to His marvellous ways.
 
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Site Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,417
5,524
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟611,630.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Really... Maybe you need to take a breath - that is a big call. It also does not reflect my heart... I present something beautiful with considerable detail and... BLAM !!!!!
I find your defence surprising. It certainly seemed to me that the position you were advocating was very much in line with what @Paidiske understood. In reality now I now have no clear understanding about what you wanted to say. It may be that the experiences of your journey of faith has led you to a position, however I am left guessing what that may be. It may also be that the experiences of my journey of faith have led me to a position where I don't see things quite the way you do.

For example in response to me above at #81 you said.
Totally agree - no move of God is perfect in this life.
It is interesting, however not my position, and not something I would normally say. The imperfections are the result of the stain of human sinfulness.

Perhaps as a side example, I have been know to say, Episcopacy is an excellent form of Ecclesial Governance, only mucked up by having Bishops. It is not the Divine Movement that is at fault, but the human intervention. That of course is the story of creation, where the spirit broods over the waters, and creations comes to birth, and it is all good, till Adam decides to try and make himself like God, rather than accept the gift he already has being made in the image and after the likeness of God.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,734
10,041
78
Auckland
✟380,260.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
For example in response to me above at #81 you said.

Totally agree - no move of God is perfect in this life.

It is interesting, however not my position, and not something I would normally say. The imperfections are the result of the stain of human sinfulness.

That is exactly why...

I think when His sovereign breath blows on the church a breakout of love results and the mode shifts closer to what we read in early acts.

There is a second factor that can bring this about - persecution.

In both cases the church is less orientated to the prevailing culture.

However I believe such a shift is always possible as we saw with the movement in El Paso under Fr. Rick Thomas. This move was precipitated by bull headed obedience to the Word and our sovereign Lord responded with an outpouring of gifts and love that changed the local culture and established an Acts style Community Church that sustained the movement. From John 17 we know that the visible unity of the church is to be central to our evangelism - and it was - the lost were raised up to lead - the signs of the kingdom were evident - there was a high level or generosity and sharing - Jesus was glorified. The world saw this because it was manifest in public space - clearly visible.

So this third option is always open to us. Obedience to the Word triggers His response. The Word received in his case was specific to sharing with the poor. However each fellowship needs to discover what is the key obedience that opens the door.

Interestingly the local church in New Zealand has little or no knowledge of the extraordinary move that took place in Christchurch in the 70's

It is the same in the US - church goers in Texas generally have no knowledge of what happened in Juarez in the 60's.

So my motive is to encourage folk that there is more to be had that is unlocked by obedience to the Word.

My life was turned around by much grace and mercy, and consuming His Word.
He has used me in wonderful ways and I want to encourage others to embark on this journey which will lead to more than they could ask or think.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
... and not just in Covid times.

https://www.anglicanjournal.com/ministr ... WELxqvoiok

I've found it almost impossible to have honest conversations about this in churches, though, because the clash of expectations, and problems with boundaries (and, I suspect, a generation gap) make it very difficult to really hear each other and respond well.

This conversation has gone a lot of different ways!

There have been times I was ministering as a pastor, in various settings, and times I was a lay person ministering as well. I don't have a big burden for the question of pay. It is biblical that someone ministering with all their time can receive pay. For Paul that meant at times being provisioned as was possible, and other times having nothing. God called him to that. For the apostles in Jerusalem that meant that they dedicated their time to prayer and ministry of the word and were taken care of for their financial needs. Sometimes when I am a lay member I wish I was a full time pastor so I could dedicate more time to the work. Sometimes when I am a full time pastor I miss the complete freedom of serving without any ulterior motive, or worry of pay. I imagine the Lord can use a variety of means there.

As to the main thrust of the article. Yes, the pandemic has put additional strain on what was already difficult. In every church I have been the pastor I have struggled to find ways to meet with people as often as they need for me to effectively serve the shepherding role that God describes. Some settings this was easier, and some more difficult.

However, there is no way to do it without spending time with individuals, families, etc. finding out what they are struggling with, what they feel the Lord calling them to do, what gifts the Lord has revealed in them, and many others. Usually this is at their home, or as was pointed out, a neutral place, depending on the circumstances.

The pandemic meant that the shorter visits you might sometimes get before a bible study or service, or times you might spend at fellowship events, whether one-off, or scheduled, were now out of the picture for a time. And you couldn't have those meetings in the home or in a lot of neutral places. And that meant a lot more phone calls and emails. I did find that difficult, producing mostly online content, and calling. We were blessed that since we are a smaller congregation we were able to meet again before long with distancing and masking, with no infections from the service. After missing some months people were tremendously excited to fellowship again. I also think that the break in the routine, and the heightened awareness of death, and our dependence on the Lord brought people to a new appreciation of the support in the church. Some still stayed home due to the virus, so now we are kind of ministering a couple different ways. I am not sure how it would have worked out if we could not open up again. The time we were closed was quite stressful, and for every pastor I talked to they had a difficult time as well. Some are still closed, and not sure how many will return if they do open. Some re-opened, and many did not return.

In all of the settings I have been in pastoral care needs to be a team effort with members who have a heart to encourage others. It is not just that we need the help, but if they don't live out their spiritual gifts they are also being hurt spiritually. When we have such in our congregation they can be a big help, and a blessing to others. Sometimes they can reach people that I cannot. Sometimes I can reach people they cannot. And whenever possible it is good to take someone else to visit with us. This can be those who are local leaders, to help model, and sometimes learn from them. It can also be young people who are growing in Christ, if they have a heart for it. Those have been some of the best visits, where young people learned to serve the Lord, care and pray for others, and had a whole new perspective on the wisdom among the members, and the challenges they faced.

There is still the issue that some, if they are visited by anyone other than the pastor, it doesn't count in their mind. And there are visits where you go to them, but you leave drained. And if you visited every week it would not be enough. Those are tough. I try to schedule those around the same time as those members who are so alive in Christ that when you leave you feel better than when you arrived.

As to managing all of the different hats, I think you cannot. Sometimes you may feel like you have to. And as in the pandemic, with technology, maybe you do have to for a short time! But most times we have to ask what is essential, and what is not worth the time. And sometimes a few things done with the right heart, and with the Spirit, does more than many things where we are so spread out we forget what we are doing.

If you are having trouble in your congregations with expectations and people feeling you are not doing your task, even though you are pouring everything into it, there can be various reasons.

Paidiske mentioned that in many churches it is not just fostering ministry, spiritual growth, shepherding, but in many cases you inherit a church in decline. They expect the good old days to come back. But you can be too focused on the good old days behind, and not see the good days ahead which may look different. They expect leadership to turn it around. But it is not leadership that turns it around. It is everyone being fully on board again for God, and that may take time to work through past hurts, focus on what He wants now, eliminate things from the past that just don't work any more, etc. Buy in is important. Some times that means taking time to look at just how far things have gotten off track, and where they are heading if it doesn't change. And that may include turnaround if folks are faithful. It may also include closure, because they are not willing, or not able to do it any longer. I would try to take time at first to fully embrace the past history of ministry in the Lord that the church had carried out. They want you to turn it around, but they also want you to understand how the Lord worked there before. Then by talking through that history, you can also start to discuss together where the fire was lost. And if there were conflicts, you can start to appeal to those who may still hold resentment. Usually by that point it becomes clear whether holding on to resentment is more important than opening to a new thing from God, or whether they have a desire to move forward.

If you frequently find that those conversations can't happen without blow-ups, it may mean significant past conflict. Or it could just mean they never gave much thought to what it means to work out their spiritual gifts, or work in a supportive way with a minister. That may mean you have a rough time of adjustment. But if you make it through then talk with them about building a team that can support you while understanding your concerns and limitations, and needs, and that can help the next pastor that the Lord brings after you leave.

Sometimes for me it means recognizing my weak areas. I have some areas I am strong in. I am terrible at administration. I let folks know right away that is not my strong point. That may sound like it would turn folks off, but it usually doesn't. I find those who are good at it and ask for their help. Some folks who can often be good at this are those kind of prickly, abrupt, demanding people who want you to have it all together, and who at times are flat out rude. They tend to be people who step on folks without realizing it. Often the congregation avoids them. But since they are going to criticize you anyway, enlist them! Then they work with you to keep you on task, help with administration, etc. Suddenly that stickler for details attitude is aimed at the task, instead of you. And hopefully you can work with them on how not to come across as harsh in the meantime. They tend to be very dedicated people, just lacking in a bit of tact.

Advice I received that really helped in later times for me was to put it all on the table up front as to what the expectations are on the personal level. On the congregational level you may not have any idea where God is leading yet, and they may not either (or they might!). But on the personal level agreeing right from the first meetings, before the positions starts, what tasks they expect, what time requirements you expect, is important. Some things may change over time, but at least then there is no initial confusion. In congregational setting that might mean there is not a match, and you move on. But often it means you can have those conversations when they expect to have a feeling out period. You also usually get a bit of grace right at the beginning from folks, unless there is a pretty toxic culture. So use that initial time to be up front. Then people know what to expect. Even in a denomination which assigns people to a church, where the clergy may not have much choice where they go (was in one of those too at one point), it is best to state expectations up front. Worst case scenario most denominational leaders are able to recognize when they don't have a good match and make other arrangements.

You cannot always totally change a system they have used for years. But you might suggest tweaks that can really free up your time, and make their time more effective. In some churches I have been in the entire church (usually small) makes decisions in a session. In others they had a board that directed most things, but would bring larger decisions to the congregation. In almost all of those they had smaller committees, boards, etc. Try and figure out which committees you don't need to be on, or that might benefit from not having you on them. We sometimes feel like we have to be in the know on everything. But sometimes we just want the control. If you have trained leaders, let them lead. We had one church where the board would decide at great length every little decision, even though they had 10 committees that reported to the board. It wasted time and frustrated people. So instead we decided that the church board would only handle items that involved the entire church, or that involved outreach. Everything else could be handled in committees who would briefly report. And we enabled the folks in charge of finances to stop having formal meetings and just meet on the phone to handle whatever they needed at the time, and only bring large items. When people came to the board meeting knowing they were going to be talking about how to reach people for Christ, instead of every business decision, they wanted to be there. Some committees I found I still needed to be on, and some I didn't.

One of the biggest benefits I have found is in small group meetings. This can be in the home, or at the church, though usually they work best in a home. People need somewhere to learn how to grow in the faith. Meeting with other believers gives opportunities for fellowship, support, learning, modeling, etc. The ones I was in that really worked formed very close bond, brought in non-believers who learned of Christ, and multiplied.

As a pastor if you attend these groups you get regular time with people to interact, and if the group allows for close sharing, they often get in to very personal discussion of spiritual needs, prayer, encouragement, confession, etc.
Some of them also paired people into prayer partners for more support. Having a mix of ages helped because the more experienced in the faith could take younger ones under their wings. Because they grow close to one another they begin to look out for one another without having to develop a formal system. Long term this works better than formal visitation systems, though those can also be helpful. The groups can also take on their own outreach or service projects, fellowship events, etc. They become almost like small churches themselves.

That last part is a challenge for some pastors. I talked to one pastor who loved the idea of small groups, but was afraid of it forming a church split, etc. He therefore limited them. But after he retired his son (not the head pastor) started such groups, and they were a great blessing. Don't try to control too much! (As was already discussed in the thread, this doesn't mean you don't have to screen people, and do training to explain abuse reporting, avoidance, etc.).

Be sure to take time during your main service to explain to people what taking the next spiritual step might look like. Are you attending services? The next step might be to join a group. Are you attending services and a group? Then find a ministry. Reminding people gives them opportunities to pursue that.

Finally, let folks know you are permission giving, rather than requiring clearance. If God is placing a burden on someone to do a ministry, find a way to not only say yes, but support them, unless you just know that they are misguided or harmful.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Paidiske
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,226
19,070
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,506,551.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I agree with everything you just said, @tall73 , except this: "And whenever possible it is good to take someone else to visit with us." There are times when this is a good thing to do, but on the whole, it is a problem both from the point of view of the person being visited (who feels ganged up on and as if they can't have a truly private/confidential conversation), and from the point of view of reducing the overall capacity for visiting. (If two of you are doing visits together, the total number of visits possible is halved, and that leaves aside questions of diary management etc).

In my experience, while you're correct about talking about expectations up front, I have never found a church which was able to do that in a healthy way. People seem to react as if this conversation is an attempt to place limitations on your love for a congregation. And they desperately want to know that their priest will love them.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree with everything you just said, @tall73 , except this: "And whenever possible it is good to take someone else to visit with us." There are times when this is a good thing to do, but on the whole, it is a problem both from the point of view of the person being visited (who feels ganged up on and as if they can't have a truly private/confidential conversation), and from the point of view of reducing the overall capacity for visiting. (If two of you are doing visits together, the total number of visits possible is halved, and that leaves aside questions of diary management etc).

In my experience, while you're correct about talking about expectations up front, I have never found a church which was able to do that in a healthy way. People seem to react as if this conversation is an attempt to place limitations on your love for a congregation. And they desperately want to know that their priest will love them.

Can't answer too much right now, but briefly, as to visiting with another:

You don't need to always do it. And clearly your situation may differ. Always clear it with the person being visited first.

I have had folks open up on those visits sometimes even more than private ones if you take a person who is a good match. Some of the members are closer to one another than they are us, especially when we are new to the congregation. If they don't want to have someone else visit, then you can go from there. And if they seem reluctant to discuss some things, that is fine, follow up on that privately.

Consider though, people cannot learn to support you in loving people if they have no opportunity to see it in action. And they can't learn what gifts they have without serving. Paul ministered along with Timothy, and Timothy carried on the torch from there finding others to pass that along to. People learn the faith by doing it, and from walking with those who are already doing it. If you want a supportive team that will help you as a pastor, I find it helps to train that team on the job.

If I train five people to visit, I just got a lot more visits than if I went to them alone. And maybe some find that God uses this to start them down a path of ministry.

I had people do this with me as well, taking me on visits, praying with me before, after, praying with the people, discussing ways to minister. It taught me far more than my academic training.

Along those lines, I had several mentors who I would go with and work in their area, and they would work in my area at times, and we would discuss how things were going. Fresh insights can be a big help. Some were formal, and some informal.

As to upfront discussions--Well, I didn't say all the participants approach it in a healthy way! Some don't. However, it is better to put it upfront than if the conversation happens six months down the road when they feel you didn't do what they expected, and are spreading rumors.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,226
19,070
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,506,551.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Consider though, people cannot learn to support you in loving people if they have no opportunity to see it in action. And they can't learn what gifts they have without serving. Paul ministered along with Timothy, and Timothy carried on the torch from there finding others to pass that along to. People learn the faith by doing it, and from walking with those who are already doing it. If you want a supportive team that will help you as a pastor, I find it helps to train that team on the job.

If I train five people to visit, I just got a lot more visits than if I went to them alone. And maybe some find that God uses this to start them down a path of ministry.

This might be partly cultural difference. I never did a home visit with someone else when I was learning; but I wrote them up as verbatims and discussed them in supervision afterwards. Here, visiting in pairs would be, I am quite certain, strongly rejected except in particular circumstances. (I did, early on, get taken along on hospital visits, partly because as a student I didn't have the hospital access that my training clergy did).

I am not suggesting that I shouldn't train people to visit; quite the contrary! But I would use visiting together very sparingly even as a training strategy.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The setting people are working in makes a difference in handling the roles and expectations. Some mentioned that in part time situations people are more understanding.

I think there is also a difference in congregational settings as compared to more top down denominational structures. When the denomination leaders are trying to cover all of the existing churches they may wind up spreading help thin.

For instance I was in rural, multi-church districts where I was the only pastor for multiple churches. In one district I had four churches with around 180 total members over around a 180 mile span. Those churches have much different expectations than a single church with one pastor, or larger churches with multiple staff. They had been without a pastor when I arrived for about two years. When I was there I offered to preach each week in all the churches, but instead the leaders continued to preach every other week, and I would go to two churches each week. In those churches if the members do not get involved in ministry, leadership, etc. the churches cease to exist. In some ways that is a good thing, because the church is designed for everyone to work together for the gospel, and build each other up with the gifts the Spirit provides. As a pastor in those churches you have to delegate. It is impossible to do it all. And so this means members learn to function in many roles.

The challenging part of that arrangement is how to divide the rest of your week and meet the needs of the people. It is also necessary to be realistic. The denominational leaders made it clear that they did not expect the time spent to be equal in the churches. And the churches themselves did not expect the same time. One of the churches was similar to what Paidiske described earlier, around 13 elderly people. The church had a tremendous history, and previously had over 100 kids, trained many pastors, teachers, etc. However, dynamics in the community meant that the past was not coming back. Where there were formerly many family farms there where now only a few farms in the whole area due to modern machinery. Family sizes decreased also as a result of less help needed on the farm. Many moved to cities to find work. This church was miles from a city. And the people who they reached previously no longer lived there. So while they did not totally abandon outreach, most of the focus was on maintaining spiritual care and serving where they could. In a congregational setting that church would have likely either gone to a part time minister, relied on local leadership (which they still did much of the time), merged with another church, or closed, with the people driving to other churches.

On the other hand one church had about a third of the town showing up, and also drew from two other nearby towns, and surrounding farms. So they continued to have viability, which lots of children, outreach, ministries, etc. Every church in that district had experienced decline, but some had the possibility of recovery, and others didn't.

When you have multiple churches to think about you have to ask whether a particular church staying in existence is helping Christ's kingdom, or whether it would be better off taking the resources and effort to another church, even if it means a little travel, and helping that church to thrive.

Years after I left merging congregations did result in two churches instead of four. And in a congregational setting that process would have likely happened sooner, but because the denomination was providing pastoral support they wanted to keep going as they were until they just could not any longer. That may have been misguided, because now the pastor of that two church district still has a large area to draw from, and a spread out member base, but can be in each location each week, and the congregations are able to function better with a larger group. The experienced believers from the elderly church then have younger people to mentor and build up in the faith, and have a purpose. It is hard to give up the past and tradition, but it may be better in the long run.

One of my other districts had three churches, one with around 120 in attendance, but with more than that on the books, and attendance fluctuated. Another one had attendance that ranged up to 74, and the last with attendance of about 35. It was still an 80 mile span or more between members. I was there for a number of years, and really enjoyed the congregations. However, I struggled to visit all of the people as often as needed. There just was not enough time to do it justice. Two of the churches were busy with various ministries and programs, and that took time to support as well. Which meant you had to choose what to focus on. It is a terrible feeling when you know you are not getting it all done. We want to fulfill the role God has for us, and not let people down. However, in some cases the role we are trying to fill is beyond us. And I think at times that can result in burnout, which only makes matters worse. When I left they reduced the district to two churches, which I think was for the best.

One of the benefits of multi-church districts that I did not appreciate until I was pastor in a single church, is that it is harder to become completely discouraged. Even if one church is facing a crisis, or seems to not be motivated, one of the other churches is likely doing something exciting. When you are trying to turn around decades long declines in churches that have sometimes lost sight of the mission, it is good when you have one place that is excited and wanting to change. When you are only in a single church if there is conflict, or unwillingness to step out in faith for a time, that is the only place you are at, and it can be very discouraging. However, seeing that process play out in various places helped me to understand that some churches may change but take longer, some may never change, and some are probably better off closing, with the members serving the Lord elsewhere. But that you can rejoice when progress is made.

Another aspect I think about is large vs. small congregations. I don't know what I would have done during the pandemic if I was pastoring a larger church. It would be very hard to contact every one and work through all the opinions on COVID safety, etc. And it is often harder to distance in such settings since facilities for a large crowd may be more packed. Right now I pastor a small congregation, that declined years ago due to conflict. They have a small group, but a comparatively large building, which is good for distancing. I was able to keep up with the members pretty well on the phone and online. Moreover, there tends to be more natural care for one another when you have a smaller group. Larger churches if planned well can still manage that in smaller sub-groups. And with smaller churches you have fewer people who are on the sidelines just watching. They need everyone to function or they fall apart. They also tend to have less money. However, I have found that I have a lot more satisfaction even if I make less, when I am able to carry out the role better in a smaller group. We still have new people coming to the congregation, though not as many as with a larger church. I feel I have enough time to spend to build them up in Christ and integrate them into the group.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,226
19,070
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,506,551.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
There's so much truth to all of that, @tall73. I'm currently in a rural parish with four churches, and I relate to a lot of what you've said here (and I came here from an inner-suburban parish with one church, which was a much more difficult and toxic place despite what would look, on paper, like an easier workload).

In fact we are in the process of reducing our churches by one, folding one congregation into another and offering the use of the building to another denomination who need space to plant. There's grief in that, but also recognition that this seems to be right for us and the other church at this point in our life cycles.

But still, like you, I simply cannot do everything to the standard I would like to, and I agree with you that "It is a terrible feeling when you know you are not getting it all done." It gnaws at me and I struggle not to feel overwhelmed or anxious. I have to try to do what I can, and leave the rest to God. And that was true even in the city parish with only one centre. The role is beyond any one person, and that was really what the article in the OP put forward so well.

I think, though, (to your point about contacting everyone to work through opinions) that larger churches tend to expect this less. They understand that every member can't be included in decision making on every matter. In smaller churches everyone expects to have a say; in larger churches they are more willing to leave such matters to a governing council or board. To be honest, I would not consider trying to workshop Covid issues with the entire membership. On larger points where I've been confronted with a choice, I've taken the issue to parish council for decisions; on smaller points I've taken an informal straw poll of members, but generally I consider trying to include every person on this stuff unworkable. Especially when the government is changing the rules often and we have relatively little control over many things. If I left it to some of my members they'd have us cheerfully breaking the law!

When you say this, though: "However, I have found that I have a lot more satisfaction even if I make less, when I am able to carry out the role better in a smaller group," my experience is different. Because our stipends are set at a diocesan level (ie. the pay rate is the same no matter which church you work at), making less means working less than full time; so that means less time to do everything and not carrying out the role as well. I would not be keen, now, to work less than full time in a setting where I was the only paid staff person, just from the point of view of being able to get things done. (And I know, of course, that it's possible to be paid part-time yet work full-time, but that's a problem in all sorts of other ways).
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There's so much truth to all of that, @tall73. I'm currently in a rural parish with four churches, and I relate to a lot of what you've said here (and I came here from an inner-suburban parish with one church, which was a much more difficult and toxic place despite what would look, on paper, like an easier workload).

The sad part is that one of our churches in the three church district had significant conflict on top of things! And they had long-standing members who rejected visitors they didn't approve of, which is about as counter-productive as you can be in a church.

In fact we are in the process of reducing our churches by one, folding one congregation into another and offering the use of the building to another denomination who need space to plant. There's grief in that, but also recognition that this seems to be right for us and the other church at this point in our life cycles.
Yes, it is not an easy decision, but it is wonderful that a church plant can benefit from the building.

But still, like you, I simply cannot do everything to the standard I would like to, and I agree with you that "It is a terrible feeling when you know you are not getting it all done." It gnaws at me and I struggle not to feel overwhelmed or anxious. I have to try to do what I can, and leave the rest to God. And that was true even in the city parish with only one centre. The role is beyond any one person, and that was really what the article in the OP put forward so well.

Yes, and it goes through seasons you just have to endure.

I think, though, (to your point about contacting everyone to work through opinions) that larger churches tend to expect this less. They understand that every member can't be included in decision making on every matter. In smaller churches everyone expects to have a say; in larger churches they are more willing to leave such matters to a governing council or board. To be honest, I would not consider trying to workshop Covid issues with the entire membership. On larger points where I've been confronted with a choice, I've taken the issue to parish council for decisions; on smaller points I've taken an informal straw poll of members, but generally I consider trying to include every person on this stuff unworkable. Especially when the government is changing the rules often and we have relatively little control over many things. If I left it to some of my members they'd have us cheerfully breaking the law!

Yes, I think that is true that larger churches do not expect input from everyone.

However, with this issue, the reality is everyone is going to be making their own decisions about what to do regarding safety, whether the whole church agrees or not. But as I called them to see how they were otherwise after the shut-down I also discussed how they saw various biblical principles such as submission to authorities, etc. I think that the same thing that would make care for the members difficult in the pandemic setting in a larger church would preclude that as well. In the end though they wound up all on the same page with a couple exceptions who still wear masks, etc. but just are waiting eagerly for when they do not have to. We also acknowledged that in our system they cannot compel churches to close (which the courts eventually upheld), but that we would try to cooperate within the request of the authorities to the degree we can, unless it goes into areas that would be against Christ's command. A brief time of meeting online we didn't feel to be that, nor did we feel masking was that. So we wanted to submit where we could.

When you say this, though: "However, I have found that I have a lot more satisfaction even if I make less, when I am able to carry out the role better in a smaller group," my experience is different. Because our stipends are set at a diocesan level (ie. the pay rate is the same no matter which church you work at), making less means working less than full time; so that means less time to do everything and not carrying out the role as well. I would not be keen, now, to work less than full time in a setting where I was the only paid staff person, just from the point of view of being able to get things done. (And I know, of course, that it's possible to be paid part-time yet work full-time, but that's a problem in all sorts of other ways).

Yes, that is more complicated. I was pastoring in the Seventh-day Adventist church at the time I was in multi-church districts. They have the same system of the same basic pay across the world field, with I think a few adjustments for education level, etc. and cost of living adjustments. That made it easier to make multi-church districts because in that system they designate a percentage that goes to the world field and then is distributed back to all levels. It was initially done that way to aid in missions where they could not afford to pay anyone. It also meant you could say whatever needed to be said without your pay being theatened unless you were being unreasonalbe and the conference got involved. That is not to say people didn't use money as leverage still at the local level.

I found I could no longer accept all of the theology of the Adventist church so I eventually resigned my ordination. For a time then I was working a secular position while first finding a new church, then participating in a local congregation for around a decade. In the meantime I still had a lot of things I was trying to work through with my own theology. But it gave me a different perspective working with the pastor, helping to teach, establish ministries in the congregation and still preach some as well. I was not really planning on going back into pastoring unless the Lord particularly indicated that it was His will. During that time I also had some severe health problems, that are at least partially hereditary. I couldn't work at all for a year, which really changed our usual routine. My wife had been staying home with the kids, and at times going with me in ministry. She had her own business for a time at home that was flexible.

That was a really odd time, not being able to work. It gave me perspective on how you are not only what you do. It also helped me to realize how stressful it is to want to be doing something that you cannot, and to want to support your family when you cannot. I got to spend a lot of time with my kids when they were really at an age they benefited from it. My wife went to work full time which was an adjustment as well. I was just starting back to a full time job when through a series of events I was convinced the Lord wanted me back in ministry, and more specifically at that church. So I began pastoring that church.

So the reason I mentioned that part is that I am now in that unusual position of working a part time ministerial job full time, when I can. They offered it part time, and we negotiated expectations on that basis. But I told them whenever I can I want to work it more than that, because we couldn't do all that we needed to in that way. I make enough for now with my wife working. And when I have had occasional health issues they were very understanding if I had to step back, or they had to have someone else fill the pulpit, etc. So for now it is working.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0