This seems to be a very key chapter of the book.  What are your thoughts about it? ... P3

Hello paradox3...........God bless you......

Yes , I do agree with Bruce on this one...I believe the clergy, leaders , need to get out into the communities and become known and become visible in a personal way ......I spent 3 years in the first church I was a member in ....which was a cell group church....we did just what Bruce is suggesting......I was in the womens ministry, as part of our leadership skills we would have cell group meetings once a week...usually about 10-12 women would attend...we would start with worship...lighting up the Holy Spirit...then we would go into prayer and the next hour would be dedicated to the sermon of the Pastor the last Sunday....we would discuss the scriptures that were preached...how they come into effect in our lives....what they meant to us personally...did they affect our lives in any way....each week we could invite friends, neighbours, family etc....

When this was discussed we would end with prayers for whomever needed them and then for a half hour fellowship with a light lunch...I believe this is what is needed ...when the group passed the 10-12 people...we would divide and one of us who were being trained as leaders would start our own cell group meetings...this was done throughtout the whole church...there were also mixed group.....this gave us and others the opportunity to be more personal with each person....it worked but not without its difficulties....when the groups were larger than twelve but not larger enough to become another group ...problems began as some were feeling left out...there was also a problem when those who attended did not go to church to hear the sermons ....but the leaders were told to teach the sermons...

I moved into a rural area and thus gave up the church...and they are still going strong to this day....I do believe this is how churches must begin to get out there in the communities....

IJL:bg

This would take a lot of education for the congregation. When they want to talk to a minister a member won't do. This has to be laid out plainly in the call process for the minister. If the minister is called to a church with a pastoral support team in his mind and when he or she arrive and find that they are the whole team, problems  arise.

Also, lay people have to be trained. Some have the will to do it, but don't have the skills needed.

This is my humble opinion.

Bruce finally gets it right. There is NO reason for us to hold onto the old champlaincy model that has the minister both running and owning the church (although later Bruce goes right back to this concept). The minister is our spiritual leader that ensures that all levels of the church's governance are working consistent with the Mission and Vision of the church. There is no reason, except when spiritual questions must be asked or congregational members become really very sick, that a minister need be involved in traditional pastoral care. This should be done by a team - either a Committee or a Team or people who oversee the care of every regular attendee. Should a deeper spritual care be required, they would pull in the minister.

Let me be clear. Pastoral Care is NOT about a Pastor caring for his/her flock. That is the old chaplaincy model. It is about "the care of the Pastorate". Why should the Minister be responsible for all levels of care of the Pastorate? Now later Bruce contradicts himself by making the Minister responsible to the Board for just this - Budgetary items, Buildings, as well as mentoring, and training Leaders, although he says this may be delegated. In the end, he still retains his evangelical roots and keeps the Minister up centre and front. In our Church the minister is part of a TEAM. Each part has its defined roles and responsibilities. The Ministry & Personnel Committee is not only responsible for supervision and support of the Minister (and personnel) but THE MINISTRY. What is the Ministry? It is the relationship between the congregants and the Minister, the congregants and the Board, the congregants with each other, and so on. WE are The Ministry. So the M&P Committee monitors these relationships. The Christian Education Committee does Christian ed. and so on.....What is left is the Spritual connectedness of the various groups to the Mission and Vision. The Minister gets involved only in monitoring this and intervening when there is a disconnect. This makes the Minister's job much easier. The kind of over-functioning that Bruce does in his church is avoided and governance does not end up on the Minister's shoulders.

So, although Bruce does a fine job of this chapter, he later will load the Minister up with all kinds of responsibilities that are NOT his/hers. This is because Bruce does not really grasp the idea that Pastoral Care has "emerged" to become "Care of the Pastorate" and that there are many Committees and Teams that are involved in this. The Pastorate is more than the people, but also the buildings, the relationships, worship items, stewardship, etc. These are overseen by the Board in its governance structure of having Committees and/or Teams. But, as long as you don't read any of the rest of Bruce is about to say about the Minister's roles and responsibilities, this Chapter is right on. It is also amazing how a small congregation will automatically look after making people feel welcoming and care for each other, just like a family. A larger church would need a Committee, not to DO this, but to ensure it was done. Pastoral Care (traditionally) is only a PART of "The Care of the Pastorate", which is where an emerging church should be going. Yes, CrazyHeart, training of lay people to do these jobs of being Leaders for most of the Church functioning is essential. This is not handled well by our Presbyteries. for ideally this should be done by the whole Presbytery - and outside agency, not by the Minister. The fact is that it is not "skills and techniques" that need to be offered. Leadership and who does it well, has more to do with SELFhood, as again Bruce has defined well (borrowing from Anna Christie). Before you lead you must know who you are, what your boundaries are, and how to thoughtfully (not just actively) listen. Learning discernment is one of the vital processes of becoming a Leader.

I agree with the concept of small group ministry, and that the role of the clergy should shift from everyone's personal chaplain to spiritual leader of the congregation. The members of a congregation should take care of each other--and of their minister!

I also like the spirt given gifts inventory. We, in our congregation, are planning on taking such an inventory, with the view of later creating a spirit given gifts program.

Every one of us is a unique expression of the Holy ONE, and every one of us has a unique gift to give to the Greater WHOLE. Sometimes we ourselves are unaware of our talents. One of the members of our congregational book study group has worked out an extensive questionaire to help us discover our special gifts.

The gifts inventory your church member worked out may be very good, or it may also be self-biased or flawed. It's a pretty big task to be able to figure out what questions will lead to what gifts. Some of us in the church have already spent a great deal of time and energy and research on this, and it may be best not to try to reinvent the wheel.

David Ewart, a UCC minister adapted an already-well-researched gifts inventory to reflect more UCC-type-gifts...such as "justice ministries" as opposed to say, "speaking in tongues". You can find Dave's inventory here:  http://www.davidewart.ca/2007/12/united-church-o.html

(scroll down on the left sidebar)

and mine, developed through Gilmore Park's spiritual gifts program here (mine is an adaptation of David's):  http://www.gilmoreparkunited.org/spiritual_gifts.shtml

Thanks for the links, LoveJoy! For all I know, our church member may have used David Ewart's inventory. I'll refer her to your links.

There are five pages of questions on her questionaire. I didn't know that there can that many different human talents!

We did the spiritual gifts inventory at my church a few years ago, and it was an interesting exercise.   Unfortunately, it did not really make much difference to the life of the congregation, because it was pretty much a "stand alone" project. 

Yes, thanks for the links, LoveJoy. I would like to know how this was handled with the congregation so that it makes a differnece to the "emerging" process. On the surface, it is a way to match talents with the various groups or Committees in the church. But it is also a way to give a person insight into talents that may be undeveloped. We had thought it should be discretionary whether the congregant shares the results of this with the group or attends a follow-up discussion in a larger group. This was to give them the choice of moving further with what they have discovered. Is this the only way? I think it might just fall flat (as paradox 3 experienced). Do you have any ideas on how to make this a larger experience? Could it be linked with a sermon or other workshop?

Might this be offered to the community as a way to invite those who WANT to know their talents, so that those participating are all motivated to go further. We have our wondercafe.live! format which could be used for this.

I like your modified one used at your church.Any further ideas would be so appreciated, LoveJoy!

Boy, paradox3, pardon me, girl, paradox3, you are fast! You forge ahead faster than I can read and reply to your threads!

Yes, I agree with LumbyLad and you. Merely doing a spiritual gifts audit is not enough. We have to have some program or system in place to make good use of those gifts. Has any congregration out there implemented such a system after doing the inventory? How did it work for you?

I have mixed feelings about ministers moving away from the role of chaplaincy.  In my own path, receiving chaplain-style pastoral care brought about a lot of healing.  I don't know that I would have been comfortable discussing many of those issues with a lay person.  As someone who had been wounded by spiritual abuse (perpetrated by lay people & other congregants) I really needed assurance that I was receiving spiritual care from someone who was competent.  The bonus of receiving care from the minister under the chaplaincy model was that I already had a good sense of if the minister was 'safe' by listening to the sermons.  Hearing the sermons gave me a good sense of the minister's communication style and helped build up the trust needed to speak to the emotional wounds.

However, as a woman who has been through the proverbial mill as a nurse, I also understand all too well the perils of burnout.  Actually, I'm currently recovering from the burnout and speaking with the priest from my Anglican church has been immensely helpful.   I agree with the small group model, it does foster the sense of belonging and community that makes a church feel like 'home'.  I merely doubt that I could have found the healing I've acheived within the context of a small group.  I'd have no problem reaching out for support in hard times, but it would be highly unlikely that I'd take the risk of discussing those highly painful issues with a peer group; it seems to bear too high a risk of spiritual injury.

That said, I am careful not to use my pastor as a therapist for emotional issues that are unrelated to the spiritual dimension.  That's what why I have an actual therapist, for those types of issues.

Another factor is this:  in my experience, I have found that professional ministers tend to be more moderate and less judgemental than the people in the pews.

As well, in this day and age of fiscal struggle, many people simply can't afford to access counselling services, and a compassionate, educated, professional pastor can be an essential resource.  I have a friend who is a minister in a parish where the bulk of congregants would be classified as the 'working poor'.  People in this scenario struggle to make ends meet and there simply are not the extra dollars for counselling.  They definitely DON'T have an EAP or benefits plan for any type of professional support.  My friend does a lot of 1 to 1 counselling; she's been in the parish for 7 years and she feels very refreshed by taking part of healing woundedness.  Her congregation has facilitated her chaplain-style role.  Essentially, she has NO administrative duties, she doesn't have to serve on any committees, and she doesn't arrange any church services or programs.  She is delighted to attend only a minimum of board meetings, and at those meetings, she basically just gets an update on various logistical aspects of the parish.  There is a variety of small groups within her congregation to meet social and emotional needs for belonging, so there's an excellent network of support once parishioners have tackled their spiritual baggage.  She keeps modified office hours, with evening hours once per week.  She sets plenty of boundaries, i.e. she does not have a listed home phone number, so when she leaves the office, there are no phone calls of distress to ruin her evening.  If there's a legit emergency, the congregant contacts a member of the Vestry, who screens the issue, and provides social and emotional support, and THEN calls the minister if necessary.  The congregation knows to call about 'business' during business hours.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.  I'm a bit Ambivalent, eh?

There could be a new Murphy's Law, Arminius . 

When you think a book study thread is finished, leave it alone and nothing will happen.  When you think a book study thread is finished, sum it up or move on to the next chapter, and lots will happen. 

Chapter 12, the last one in the book, is a heavier read than chapters 10 and 11.  I will probably summarize it a section at a time when we get there. 

Diva, 

Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful post.  You make several good points. 

I sense that the move away from chaplaincy is more of a move away from the 24 hour friend.

Let me try and explain.  The Minister needs to be there for the flock.  To tend to their problems, tragedies, joys, etc.  But at some point, these visitations become exactly that.  The lonely wanting a friendly body to talk to.  The Minister can either continue to visit these people, causing other tasks to back up which then overloads her, or can pass the task on to the "others", what we call in our church "The Keeping in Touch" committee.  These are the people who visit the people who really don't need the Minsiter, but need someone to talk to.

IT

Russ

Russ,

Great point!  You are right about ministerial visits to the lonely being a drain on resources.  THAT is definitely a role that can be addressed by a small group or a visitation. 

I am a church musician for 2 small congregations in rural communities, one has been without a pastor for nearly 2 years.  In the pastor-free congregation, we have a visitation committee to visit 'shut-ins' (what an archair term) and people in need.  I take part in this committee, generally, I do 2 to 3 visits a week, because I have the time these days. (I'm studying at home full-time thru an internet program.)  The visits from a 'friendly face' (vs a minister) to those who are 'merely' lonely seem to be welcomed.  The only thing that would be nice is if a minister would be able to serve communion to the home-bound once or twice a year. 

Diva , that brings up another question and I know folk won't like it but in  cases like this why do we  need a minister to preside over communion.I will duck before the revs get here.

crazyheart

IMHO, absolutely no reason.

IT

Russ

RussP:

To build on your point many shut-ins crave contact with their peers.  What does an elderly gentleman have in common with a 26 year old woman minister for example?  In one of my former pastoral charges two of the male elders did a yearly stewardship visitation to get donations from members who looked forward to their visits!

Crazyheart - I'm sure you've heard about the movement in our church to include "sacramental elders" so hopefully you won't have to continue beating this drum

That's why you need to embrace spiral dynamics.  The old paradigm of posting a thread, completing it and moving on to the next does not fit in a progressive world view. 

Meredith

You've noticed that too.

As much as P3 and Arminius want us to move on, there is always just that one more thought.

IT

Russ

Hi Diva:

Welcome to our discussion group!

In cases of serious physical illness or severe psychological or spiritual distress, the minister would still be there for everyone. But for ordinary support, small group ministry should work well, and take the load off the minister.

In most congregations, there already are friends looking out for each other. In the small group ministry model, this would be more organized and no-one would be left out.

Agreed, Arminius! 

LOL @ Meredith! 

Yes, Meredith, in the Spiral Dynamics, new forms transcend and inlude previous forms. That's why we jump all over space and time here in the emerging church, and have great fun doing it.

"Your church is more fun!" said a couple of RC women to me the other day. I think making religion great fun while taking it very seriously is very important.

Armi, yes!! Make it fun. Celebrate God and being together and being blessed.  The more seriously you take it, the more fun it is.

weeze

If the hymn makes you want to dance, dance, dammit.  ENJOY!

IT

Russ

Back to the topic of pastoral care and some of its perils. It has been shared over the last  couple of years on WonderCafe that ministers do not do one on one visiting - men with women or vive-versa - especially in their homes or in the church office( with the door closed) because of the fear of harassment ( sexual or other) situations arising. Has this been one of the perils that  has led to the visiting mantle being handed to small groups. Maybe there are some revs who would comment.

I've never been sexually harrassed (Those inclined to do so probably wouldn't dare) but what I'm up against is a severe allergy to cats.  I went out visiting shut-ins Wednesday night and they were brief visits to drop off gift baskets and sing a few carols however my head was pounding when I got home.  One person had a cat the size of a small buffalo half of which was long fur.  Magnificant creature but deadly to me - pain shot through my head in minutes and lasted all night.

It takes a cast iron constitution to do home visitations these days - you have to endure a lot of discomfort with allergens like pets, dust from unclean homes, cigarette smoke and in some cases, sadly, the really bad odor of incontinence.  There are many folks living in some pretty dismal circumstances unfortunately.

Meredith, 

There is a very unfortunate typo in your post .  Look carefully and you will find it.  I didn't use the reply or quote function, so you should still be able to edit it.  Ha ha.  It is a funny one.

P3

Oh Lord, oops.

IT

Russ

Meredith, 

As an occupational therapist, I worked for a few years for a community agency, where I did home visiting.  I totally hear you.  Community work has its up side, but oh yes, I am thankful to be working in a hospital again. 

LOL @ RussP!

hahahaha@Meredith

My take is that I do spiritual care which means some one to one and it is different from visiting ie pastoral care - I do follow up when a pastoral visitor runs into a problem beyond their level - this is why the point of the anglican minister is not pastoral care in the old sense of visiting by the minister as in chaplain - actually if one is a chaplain you have different functions than a minister who does pastoral visiting - she actually is a chaplain in the functional sense of a spiritual guide as her role- not in hand holding-  there are some ritual activity needed, like the laying on of hands for a dying person.

Since this is Friday I think the communion belongs to the office - which means ordination - now if this was Sat I might think differently

P3

Would prune juice help?

I know I know, OFF TOPIC, flame him.

IT

Russ

Pan

I think it is a very valid distinction, and I don't think there was any intent to diminish (?) the Minster's role, just off load some of the more (politely said) mundane hand holding kind of visitation.

As far as Communion , what would happen if you were a group, of say 10, without access to an ordained person?  We have a sister church up North and I think that may well be their situation.

IT

Russ

Since this is Friday I would do a reserved communion - this is when the bread and wine are blessed by "ordained" person and then held for small group communions and also for elders to take out on a visit -  of course one would need wine for grape juice only lasts for so long - On communion Sunday one could bless a whole extra amount - and in your northern situation you send some ordained person in every once and while and bless a whole bunch of bread and wine and reserve what is not used for other times... On Sat I might not care how it is done

What is it with me and that word - same typo on a political thread too.  What a s**t for brains! 

Meredith

Me thinks you sayith one thing, but your brain, and therefore fingers, tyist something else. 

IT

Russ

This is too Catholic for me

Covering my head,I ask what do revs have that is so special that they can bless and noone else can? I know, I know, they have a university degree.

The Quakers would agree with you CH.

Whether or not non-ordained people should give communion depends, I think, on the degree of comfort of the communicant. If the communicant were comfortable with me giving communion, then I'd do it.

To me, every interaction with my environment is an interaction with the omnipresent God. The ritual of communion, then, is becoming or being aware of everyday interaction such as eating and drinking as a union and communion with God.

Yes my view has been influenced by the tradition - of setting apart of  a presider of the host at the communion table - this is what ordination has meant in even the UCC - we are ordained to function - a setting apart.  Now there is debate on this but the point is the UCC falls within a tradition ( and traditions can be changed) Now Quakers have a different understanding thus different tradition. As do many other churches - for example the Anglicans have a 'high' sense of ordination thus there is a setting apart that has a long history.

The UCC is in the midst of a discussion on the meaning of ordination ( only for about the 5th time since 1968) and while there are many views we still understand ordination ( not just because there is more education that comes from the office) as a setting apart and having some sacramental/symbolic power.

It is true God is in every nano second - everywhere - and there is an understanding that ritual makes that symbolically clear - general to the specific- and the understanding of ordination is that the presider makes this clear at the table and is given authority by the church to make this clear - Now it is also true that the authority must also be recognized by those who are hosted. This is based on the idea that the meal belongs to the church not to the person and re- presents the activity of God which is felt through the church qua church. ( This is not to claim that only the church is conduit to God but makes that which is general there a specific there - ritual makes clear the aim of God in a specific way.

The simple understanding is that in communion real presence is there - God is felt and there is a history that connects in the act with the present and the history of Jesus and Jesus as the Christ. 

Therefore since this is Monday I believe that since there is real presence anyone can do communion... but that does call into question the meaning of setting apart as in ordination.  Now tomorrow I may believe that symbolically we need setting apart and for the sake of tradition we limit communion to those ordained.  The point is how to connect tradition and presence?- presiding and hosting the host.

This has implication for pastoral care - if symbolically there are 'spiritual' needs - like blessing and forgiveness in the laying on of hands and other such ritual acts - then ordination has symbolic power of the presence of the aim of God - making clear the activity of God in ones life - pastoral care is this ritualized care and not friendly visiting - it is the power of ritual to heal and sustain and send out in praxis.

And if communion is the meal of the community to sustain them for living then the ritualized aspect comes back to the presider - an if the presider re-presents the presence of God then the act of ordination makes the presider ritually the connection to the presence in a more vivid way.

Pan

I am firmly convinced that if you change your mind often enough, you will become a second Tazmanian Devil

IT

Russ

Hi Everyone,

As regards pastoral care in our progressive Christian church, we operate in the following way.

Our minister does all the "official" duties - such as funerals, weddings etc. He's also there for those who prefer to speak to an ordained minister. We then have a retired minister who's in charge of pastoral care. Our congregation is broken up into neighbourhood groups who meet monthly and support each other. Finally, we make close friendships within the congregation and naturally are there for each other when comfort is required.

It all works well!

Is there any one who would like to elaborate on some of the issues that face revs when they do visiting? A long time ago on a similar thread some revs said that they never visit someone alone. Is this an issue for anyone?

Our Rev is part time, and has never visited us at home. Since the hours she gets paid are not enough for everything she does, we have to pay her extra for pastoral visitations.

I don't want to pay our pastor to visit me. I'll visit her instead--for free--and bring her some home-grown produce in the bargain. 

Taking good care of the pastor, eh?