Your Children and ministry.

[archer75]

Great post overall, that I think sees some of the pitfalls I'm trying to highlight.

This bit, though... whole other can of worms!

Sorry about that, I know I can be kind of annoying and opinionated, and have a tendency to speak in unclear summaries.

I just came back to this thread to clarify my remark about the "can of worms" you mentioned -- please let me say that I meant "IF those in ministry are formally expected to protect their children from all influence from 'the world,' then that person's spouse is going to have to be there for the kids 24 / 7 and to do homeschooling with them, and naturally, those in the hiring position / the parish / the bishop / whoever are going to have to pay enough that the spouse does not have to work outside the home, EVER, because NOT to pay enough to support the family would mean the other spouse has to work and therefore has to expose the children to evil influences by letting them be elsewhere, which would mean that the parish is, at the outset, putting the family in an impossible position."

And I don't think employers or "employers" can be permitted to put their employees in impossible positions.

 

[Paidiske]

Sorry about that, I know I can be kind of annoying and opinionated,

Not at all.

I just came back to this thread to clarify my remark about the "can of worms" you mentioned -- please let me say that I meant "IF those in ministry are formally expected to protect their children from all influence from 'the world,' then that person's spouse is going to have to be there for the kids 24 / 7 and to do homeschooling with them, and naturally, those in the hiring position / the parish / the bishop / whoever are going to have to pay enough that the spouse does not have to work outside the home, EVER, because NOT to pay enough to support the family would mean the other spouse has to work and therefore has to expose the children to evil influences by letting them be elsewhere, which would mean that the parish is, at the outset, putting the family in an impossible position."

Mmm. This is not something I'd be willing to accept, as a general expectation. It's right for some families; great for them. It's detrimental for other families; faithful living is not a one-size-fits-all reality. And it assumes that things like going to school - even a church school! - is automatically "evil influence." And this kind of meddling in family life is exactly the sort of control from which I'd want to see our families protected.

Not that I'm saying that churches should feel free to under-pay their ministers, expecting that the spouse will work to support the household! But more that a stipend shouldn't come with "strings" with which to puppeteer the minister's family.

And I don't think employers or "employers" can be permitted to put their employees in impossible positions.

This I definitely agree with.

 

[archer75]

Mmm. This is not something I'd be willing to accept, as a general expectation. It's right for some families; great for them. It's detrimental for other families; faithful living is not a one-size-fits-all reality. And it assumes that things like going to school - even a church school! - is automatically "evil influence." And this kind of meddling in family life is exactly the sort of control from which I'd want to see our families protected.

Not that I'm saying that churches should feel free to under-pay their ministers, expecting that the spouse will work to support the household! But more that a stipend shouldn't come with "strings" with which to puppeteer the minister's family.

This I definitely agree with.

Again, I should have been much clearer: I also don't think every influence outside the home is evil, but if it is understood as a condition of employment that you will be fired if your children show evidence of having been exposed to such influences...then the church has to pay you enough that you can minimize those influences!

Otherwise the employer is behaving incoherently. "We require this of you, but we will NOT provide working conditions under which it is possible." Naturally, many employers do behave incoherently, but I do not think that is good.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Generally, the term "secular priest" means one who is not a monastic, but my guess is that you mean something more pejorative here.

However, for what it's worth, I agree that good church governance is not a matter of priests forcing such things onto the church. I highly value deliberative and synodical processes which include robust lay participation. There also needs to be room for the voices of clergy spouses and their (grown) children!

Sure. But nothing I suggested above in post #47 is out of alignment with a Biblical foundation. Sometimes we do need to go beyond what the text says.

Mmmm...... depends what you mean by 'beyond'

...and to clarify - some politicians act like 'secular priests' imposing their 'morality' on the populace.

 

[Paidiske]

Mmmm...... depends what you mean by 'beyond'

I mean that often Scripture sets out a principle, but does not spell out in detail how we live out that principle. It's not wrong for us, then, as a church community, to set out some guidelines that make sense in our own context, especially when we do so to prevent potential problems or abuses.

As for civil law and safeguards, while the implementation is sometimes clumsy, I'm really grateful that governments have stepped in where churches have failed to self-govern responsibily. But if you object to governments doing so, then the answer is to get out ahead of them and make sure there is no need for their intervention.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I mean that often Scripture sets out a principle, but does not spell out in detail how we live out that principle. It's not wrong for us, then, as a church community, to set out some guidelines that make sense in our own context, especially when we do so to prevent potential problems or abuses.

As for civil law and safeguards, while the implementation is sometimes clumsy, I'm really grateful that governments have stepped in where churches have failed to self-govern responsibily. But if you object to governments doing so, then the answer is to get out ahead of them and make sure there is no need for their intervention.

 

[Carl Emerson]

That would work if the Govt and the Church were on the same page which often isn't the case.

 

[Paidiske]

That would work if the Govt and the Church were on the same page which often isn't the case.

No, not entirely on the same page. But, when it comes to recognising harm, and working to prevent it, really there shouldn't be much between them. The disparity mostly comes in when the church refuses to recognise the harms it has caused or allowed to flourish.

That's really off topic, though. I doubt the government is going to care what parenting standards are in place for ministers. The point remains: it's quite possible to have a Biblical foundation, and still have some basic safeguards against bullying or mistreatment. There's nothing un-Biblical about that.

 

[Carl Emerson]

No, not entirely on the same page. But, when it comes to recognising harm, and working to prevent it, really there shouldn't be much between them.

Not so sure about that, but probably a topic for another thread.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Let's be real, here, Carl. The church the world over is a scandal for its failure to recognise or respond to abuse in multiple forms. Whole churches are going bankrupt in paying reparations to their victims. Ministers are leaving the ministry in droves, not least because of lack of support, unrealistic expectations, and poor treatment from their churches.

To my mind, it's not about "insurance against God not working." It's about an honest and realistic measure of human sinfulness and ability to fail. So yes; we put in place some safeguards against our own worst tendencies (for example, all of the child safety standards that our now just part of how we do ministry with children), and that will give more scope for God's work to be unhindered by human frailty and foolishness.

The Jesuits among my lecturers had a saying: What is not consciously structured, is unconsciously unjust. That is, it's better to put some well-thought-through structures in place, than leave people to make it up as they go along, because in doing that we will always do it less well than if we take the time to get it right up front.

You assume that some basic structures mean not really "being with" your congregation. That's not my experience. My experience is that they enable a deeper and better "being with." Lack of safety impairs relationships.

I can tell you this. I've been vulnerable to a loveless congregation. There's a grace in that. But there's also a cost; a very high cost. And most of us can't pay that cost indefinitely. My limit was three years; others might last longer.

But it's one thing to willingly choose to endure in that situation. It's quite another thing for a congregation, or a church, to deliberately structure itself in such a way as to refuse to recognise or put any protection in place for that vulnerability. That's negligent, and unloving.

So when people want to. in effect, put in place a parenting standard as part of what ministers are held accountable for, dead right I want to make sure that's done in a way which protects ministers and their families from bullying behaviour. Because I've seen the harm that can be done when we don't give thought to those matters. And I don't see why the church should be any more cavalier with the safety of its ministers, than it is with the safety of each and every member.

In respect to your comments - I just witnessed what you were raising - so I owe you a response...

A Cyclone ripped through Auckland and flooded the household of our leading priest. The Church house is a mess and they reckon 3 months before it is habitable.

The response to this family under stress was unbelievable - his wife was seen leaving the church in tears - in a congregation of maybe 300 no one came up with suitable accommodation and the Diocese was sadly quiet.

This speaks of a Christianity disconnected with Love and plainly dysfunctional.

My point has been that the answer to this dilemma is repentance and a fresh outpouring of Love.

I take the prayers Sunday - it will be hard to hold back the tears.

So I have been saying that structural and organizational changes will not substitute for redeeming the heart of the church.

Yet there is hope - He has a plan.

Many of us have seen a giant river of revival running through the building.

 

[Paidiske]

My point has been that the answer to this dilemma is repentance and a fresh outpouring of Love.

...

So I have been saying that structural and organizational changes will not substitute for redeeming the heart of the church.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that any structure or organisation, without love, will not work. But - and it's a big but - having at least some safeguards, some checks and balanaces, some thoughtful and wise structure, goes a long way to buffering against our potential for harm.

In a way, the very Scripture in the OP is attempting to put that kind of structure and safeguard in place, by giving the church some things to look for in appointing its leaders.