A few years ago the late Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler edited a book written by a number of Christian thinkers titled Is Your Church Ready?: Motivating Leaders to Live an Apologetic Life. An excellent book, it highlighted the need for church leaders to do more apologetical preaching and teaching in their churches in order to help their congregations better understand and defend their faith. It is a book on my bookshelf that I have turned to more than once.
In the times in which we live one of the greatest needs in the church is for believers to understand why they believe what they claim they do believe. I wonder how many people in our churches could give a sound answer to someone who asked, "Why should I accept the Bible as true when there are so many errors in it?" What would they say if they were asked why they believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way one can have a relationship with God? Could they give sound, theological answers to those questions, and dozens of other questions unbelievers might ask? I'm afraid not many could.
Lately, I've thought about what I would do if I returned to pastoral ministry. The answer I've come up with is that I would focus my ministry on helping my congregation go deeper into the Scriptures than many of them have gone before. The church in America is about to face challenges it hasn't faced before. We've been on the sidelines of society for a long time, and we're about to move even further away. Called to be salt and light to the world we were to influence the world for God. Instead, we have allowed the world to penetrate the church. Many of our people do not have a Christian worldview that is informed by theological thinking, and this is the case because they have not been taught sound theology. Too many have been spoon-fed a diet of secular thinking with just enough Scripture to make it sound right and be acceptable in our PC world.
Pastors need more theology and apologetical books on their shelves and less self-help and church management books. We need to turn our offices back into studies. We need to stop entertaining our youth and begin to teach them what Christians believe and how to defend those beliefs so when they go away to college they won't come back as atheists. It's time we take the second part of the Great Commission seriously and make disciples of those who are part of our churches.
Denominations need to develop curriculum that teaches solid theology instead of providing material that offers little of substance. Years ago when I was still pastoring our church was using Sunday school material from outside our denomination. When the denomination revamped its material it asked churches to commit to it for one year. I encouraged our church to make a two-year commitment as I was sure that it would have some bugs that would need to be worked out. After the two years was up we went back to the old material we had been using. Not a single class or teacher felt the material was good enough to keep using. A few years later our denomination did away with its educational component as if education and discipleship was no longer important.
Some pastors believe they have to water down their teaching or people won't attend their churches. Studies consistently find the opposite is true. Formerly unchurched people say when they began looking for a church they were looking for one that knew what it believed and was not afraid to proclaim what it believed. Christians serious about their faith want solid biblical teaching.
I encourage you to ask yourself the question: Is your church ready to defend its faith in today's culture? Can your members stand up to the challenges they are about to face as a result of their faith? If not, what are you going to do about it?
Tuesday, June 9, 2020
Monday, June 8, 2020
Unintended consequences
Most decisions are made with careful planning and with a desire to improve some situation. However, despite the best of intentions, these decisions often come with unintended consequences. These are the consequences that no one saw resulting from the decision that was made. These might be positive or negative. A positive unintended consequence might be a newly developed drug that was found to have healing power for another disease that was not expected when it was being developed. An example of a negative unintended consequence might be the higher number of women and children who would fall below the poverty line when no-fault divorce laws were enacted throughout the country.
Churches can make decisions that result in unintended consequences. A clear example of this is a church that decides to build a new facility believing that "if we build it they will come." In some cases, not only do new people not come, but long-term members who opposed the new building leave the church resulting in a large debt that must be paid for by fewer people attending the church.
Jesus told us to count the cost when we are making our plans. Certainly, we need to consider any unintended consequences that might result as a result of any decisions we might make. Rushing into a decision is seldom a good idea because doing so is almost guaranteed to result in unintended consequences.
Some communities are trying to do away with their police departments. Others are attempting to take money out of police budgets. All of this is the result of recent police actions which has led to demonstrations across the country. There is no question that some of these actions were unacceptable and individuals need to be held accountable. But, does anyone really believe that eliminating the police departments is the answer to solving these kinds of problems? Can the people promoting this not see the unintended consequences that would result from eliminating police departments? Or do they have another agenda altogether? There are so many obvious negative consequences associated with doing away with police departments that it is hard to even refer to them as unintended consequences.
There are better steps that can be taken such as better screening of candidates, minority recruitment, better training, better funding, the return of regular beats where the police and individuals get to know one another better, and finding ways to connect the police to the community they serve.
When I did a study of bivocational pastors a few years ago I found that some of them were serving as police officers in their communities. There is no problem with Christians serving as police officers, and we should see more Christians seeing this as a possible life-calling. Talk about a way to impact people's lives! There could be a real opportunity for positive unintended consequences in such a calling.
Churches can make decisions that result in unintended consequences. A clear example of this is a church that decides to build a new facility believing that "if we build it they will come." In some cases, not only do new people not come, but long-term members who opposed the new building leave the church resulting in a large debt that must be paid for by fewer people attending the church.
Jesus told us to count the cost when we are making our plans. Certainly, we need to consider any unintended consequences that might result as a result of any decisions we might make. Rushing into a decision is seldom a good idea because doing so is almost guaranteed to result in unintended consequences.
Some communities are trying to do away with their police departments. Others are attempting to take money out of police budgets. All of this is the result of recent police actions which has led to demonstrations across the country. There is no question that some of these actions were unacceptable and individuals need to be held accountable. But, does anyone really believe that eliminating the police departments is the answer to solving these kinds of problems? Can the people promoting this not see the unintended consequences that would result from eliminating police departments? Or do they have another agenda altogether? There are so many obvious negative consequences associated with doing away with police departments that it is hard to even refer to them as unintended consequences.
There are better steps that can be taken such as better screening of candidates, minority recruitment, better training, better funding, the return of regular beats where the police and individuals get to know one another better, and finding ways to connect the police to the community they serve.
When I did a study of bivocational pastors a few years ago I found that some of them were serving as police officers in their communities. There is no problem with Christians serving as police officers, and we should see more Christians seeing this as a possible life-calling. Talk about a way to impact people's lives! There could be a real opportunity for positive unintended consequences in such a calling.
Wednesday, June 3, 2020
Smaller churches and pastoral leadership part 2
Yesterday we began looking at the realities of calling a pastor to serve a smaller church. Our focus was on calling bivocational pastors. Today we will look at some other options.
Methodist churches have had pastors serving more than one congregation for many years. One pastor serves three churches in the area in which I live. I once led a conference for a Methodist district and preached in one of their churches on Sunday morning. That church was one of four that pastor served.
As a Baptist I have found many in my tribe do not want to share a pastor with another church. I was once asked if I would consider serving another church that was much smaller than the small church I was already serving. After speaking to our leadership I agreed if the other church was agreeable. They weren't. They wanted their own pastor. This happened years ago, and they've been without a pastor more often than they've had one. There is no reason a pastor cannot serve more than one small church. I predict we will see more of this in the future or we will see more churches closing their doors.
Another option is to allow your small church to be a satellite of a larger, nearby church. The pastor of that church would serve your church as well. Sermons would either be live via technology or be on video to be played a week later. I know many want a live person presenting the sermon, but these folks also have no problem watching a movie or a TV program. There's really no difference. The pastor would provide leadership to the church as well as preach. One big advantage to the smaller church is that they would probably have an experienced pastor serving them for an extended period of time rather than someone lacking experience who would stay a year or two before moving on.
A third option is one that many churches will not consider: calling a woman pastor. My denomination, which supports women in ministry, has many churches that will not consider a woman candidate. Other denominations will exclude one of their churches that would call a woman as pastor. It's hard to justify that from Scripture (Please don't send me your proof texts. I know them all.). I also struggle to understand this mindset when so many conservative denominations welcome women as pastors in their churches. Can so many denominations be wrong about this? To exclude women pastors is to exclude a growing percentage of the people who might be candidates for the position.
A fourth option is to select someone from your congregation to serve as pastor. I've seen this done a few times, and it worked out well. Such a person is committed to the church and is known and trusted by the members. There are training programs available to help such a person acquire basic pastoral skills and theology. One big advantage is that the person is a known commodity and is already trusted by the congregation.
A fifth option is to restructure your church into small groups with a pastor/small group leader for each group. This might entail selling your building and meeting in homes. As one church planter told me once, a church of 30 people can do the same things in homes as it can in a building. You might decide to keep your building and come together each week for fellowship and worship. The small group leaders might take turns speaking or you could use video courses to study together as a church body. There are a number of possibilities associated with this option.
Smaller churches need to rethink what they can expect from future pastors and what these persons will look like. As I wrote yesterday, it's not 1950 any more. What worked then will not work now no matter how much you might want it to. If you are flexible in your search for new pastoral leadership, you will find the person God has for your church. If not, you are going to struggle to find leadership in the future.
Methodist churches have had pastors serving more than one congregation for many years. One pastor serves three churches in the area in which I live. I once led a conference for a Methodist district and preached in one of their churches on Sunday morning. That church was one of four that pastor served.
As a Baptist I have found many in my tribe do not want to share a pastor with another church. I was once asked if I would consider serving another church that was much smaller than the small church I was already serving. After speaking to our leadership I agreed if the other church was agreeable. They weren't. They wanted their own pastor. This happened years ago, and they've been without a pastor more often than they've had one. There is no reason a pastor cannot serve more than one small church. I predict we will see more of this in the future or we will see more churches closing their doors.
Another option is to allow your small church to be a satellite of a larger, nearby church. The pastor of that church would serve your church as well. Sermons would either be live via technology or be on video to be played a week later. I know many want a live person presenting the sermon, but these folks also have no problem watching a movie or a TV program. There's really no difference. The pastor would provide leadership to the church as well as preach. One big advantage to the smaller church is that they would probably have an experienced pastor serving them for an extended period of time rather than someone lacking experience who would stay a year or two before moving on.
A third option is one that many churches will not consider: calling a woman pastor. My denomination, which supports women in ministry, has many churches that will not consider a woman candidate. Other denominations will exclude one of their churches that would call a woman as pastor. It's hard to justify that from Scripture (Please don't send me your proof texts. I know them all.). I also struggle to understand this mindset when so many conservative denominations welcome women as pastors in their churches. Can so many denominations be wrong about this? To exclude women pastors is to exclude a growing percentage of the people who might be candidates for the position.
A fourth option is to select someone from your congregation to serve as pastor. I've seen this done a few times, and it worked out well. Such a person is committed to the church and is known and trusted by the members. There are training programs available to help such a person acquire basic pastoral skills and theology. One big advantage is that the person is a known commodity and is already trusted by the congregation.
A fifth option is to restructure your church into small groups with a pastor/small group leader for each group. This might entail selling your building and meeting in homes. As one church planter told me once, a church of 30 people can do the same things in homes as it can in a building. You might decide to keep your building and come together each week for fellowship and worship. The small group leaders might take turns speaking or you could use video courses to study together as a church body. There are a number of possibilities associated with this option.
Smaller churches need to rethink what they can expect from future pastors and what these persons will look like. As I wrote yesterday, it's not 1950 any more. What worked then will not work now no matter how much you might want it to. If you are flexible in your search for new pastoral leadership, you will find the person God has for your church. If not, you are going to struggle to find leadership in the future.
Tuesday, June 2, 2020
Smaller churches and pastoral leadership
For the past few years we have seen smaller churches struggle to find pastoral leadership. I've written about the problem several times in this blog and in some of my books. One of my responsibilities as a judicatory minister was to help churches find pastors. This became an increasingly difficult task as time went by. In talking to people doing the job I used to do I'm hearing it's even worse now.
In our area a majority of our smaller churches were served by students at a nearby seminary. Several years ago that seminary became non-supportive of our churches and many of their students would not consider serving in our churches. When that source dried up our smaller churches found it difficult to find pastors. Studies regularly find that many seminary graduates are not willing to serve in smaller churches. Bivocational pastors are often the best hope for these churches, but there are problems finding these pastors as well.
Bivocational pastors are going to come from the local area. Few people are going to move into rural Indiana from New Jersey to pastor a church of 40 people. An hour's drive is about the maximum distance that is feasible for a bivocational pastor. Many bivocational pastors lack a seminary degree, and some churches still insist on a seminary-trained pastor. The vast majority of bivocational pastors I've known have been dedicated servants of God and to the ministry He has given them. A handful I've known have been train wrecks looking for a set of tracks. Just because someone comes down the road with a cross around his neck calling himself Reverend doesn't mean you want him or her as your pastor. Calling any pastor without taking the time to check references can lead to real problems for a church.
Since it's getting more and more difficult to find good pastoral leadership for smaller churches, what's the solution? The solution is that churches are going to have to think differently about their pastors in the future. Let me talk straight about this. I don't want to make anyone angry, but it's time for some straight talk. If your small church wants pastoral leadership in the future you are going to have to be willing to be flexible. This isn't 1950 when you could expect 20-30 candidates all wanting to be your next pastor. You may be fortunate for find 2 or 3, and that could take a year or two. We are in a much different time,and finding pastors for smaller churches is only going to get more difficult in the future.
Before I retired I found that many smaller churches do not want a bivocational pastor. They still believe they can have a full-time seminary-trained pastor, pay that person $25,000 a year and believe that individual will be there forever. It's not going to happen. If you argue they shouldn't be in the ministry for the money, I would ask you when was the last time you turned down a pay raise in your chosen field? Few people go into the ministry for the money, but pastors, like everyone else, have a responsibility to provide for their families. That includes a home, safe vehicles to drive, medical care, food, education for their children and savings for retirement.
I cannot tell you how many times a pastor search committee explained to me that if the pastor grew the church they would be glad to increase his or her salary. I finally started telling those committees that it sounded like they weren't looking for a pastor, they wanted to hire a commissioned sales person. The more sales that were made (increased attendance) the more they could earn. That is not an acceptable way to look for a pastor.
Numerous studies have found that smaller churches do not suffer by having a bivocational pastor. In fact, as I pointed out in my book The Bivocational Pastor: Two Jobs, One Ministry there are numerous advantages for a church that calls a bivocational pastor. These individuals may or may not have a seminary education. While one might be preferable, such an education is not a necessity if the pastor is solid in his or her theology, is able to present good messages and is gifted in pastoral skills. Chances are good that if your church have an average attendance of 100 or so it will be led by a bivocational pastor in the near future. If your church is under 60 it's almost a given.
Tomorrow we will look at some more realities in calling a pastor for the smaller church.
In our area a majority of our smaller churches were served by students at a nearby seminary. Several years ago that seminary became non-supportive of our churches and many of their students would not consider serving in our churches. When that source dried up our smaller churches found it difficult to find pastors. Studies regularly find that many seminary graduates are not willing to serve in smaller churches. Bivocational pastors are often the best hope for these churches, but there are problems finding these pastors as well.
Bivocational pastors are going to come from the local area. Few people are going to move into rural Indiana from New Jersey to pastor a church of 40 people. An hour's drive is about the maximum distance that is feasible for a bivocational pastor. Many bivocational pastors lack a seminary degree, and some churches still insist on a seminary-trained pastor. The vast majority of bivocational pastors I've known have been dedicated servants of God and to the ministry He has given them. A handful I've known have been train wrecks looking for a set of tracks. Just because someone comes down the road with a cross around his neck calling himself Reverend doesn't mean you want him or her as your pastor. Calling any pastor without taking the time to check references can lead to real problems for a church.
Since it's getting more and more difficult to find good pastoral leadership for smaller churches, what's the solution? The solution is that churches are going to have to think differently about their pastors in the future. Let me talk straight about this. I don't want to make anyone angry, but it's time for some straight talk. If your small church wants pastoral leadership in the future you are going to have to be willing to be flexible. This isn't 1950 when you could expect 20-30 candidates all wanting to be your next pastor. You may be fortunate for find 2 or 3, and that could take a year or two. We are in a much different time,and finding pastors for smaller churches is only going to get more difficult in the future.
Before I retired I found that many smaller churches do not want a bivocational pastor. They still believe they can have a full-time seminary-trained pastor, pay that person $25,000 a year and believe that individual will be there forever. It's not going to happen. If you argue they shouldn't be in the ministry for the money, I would ask you when was the last time you turned down a pay raise in your chosen field? Few people go into the ministry for the money, but pastors, like everyone else, have a responsibility to provide for their families. That includes a home, safe vehicles to drive, medical care, food, education for their children and savings for retirement.
I cannot tell you how many times a pastor search committee explained to me that if the pastor grew the church they would be glad to increase his or her salary. I finally started telling those committees that it sounded like they weren't looking for a pastor, they wanted to hire a commissioned sales person. The more sales that were made (increased attendance) the more they could earn. That is not an acceptable way to look for a pastor.
Numerous studies have found that smaller churches do not suffer by having a bivocational pastor. In fact, as I pointed out in my book The Bivocational Pastor: Two Jobs, One Ministry there are numerous advantages for a church that calls a bivocational pastor. These individuals may or may not have a seminary education. While one might be preferable, such an education is not a necessity if the pastor is solid in his or her theology, is able to present good messages and is gifted in pastoral skills. Chances are good that if your church have an average attendance of 100 or so it will be led by a bivocational pastor in the near future. If your church is under 60 it's almost a given.
Tomorrow we will look at some more realities in calling a pastor for the smaller church.
Monday, June 1, 2020
Fewer people watching church services on social media
I read last week that fewer people are tuning into their church's worship services online than there were when churches first began broadcasting their services due to the pandemic. The writers of the article were not sure if this reflected normal summer church attendance patterns or if it showed that people were getting tired of the online services and being unable to attend services in person.
A couple of weeks ago I was talking with an individual who said his family were attending services at a small, rural church that was holding on-site services. He said the online services of their home church were OK for a time, but they had grown tired of them. They wanted to be with people in a worship service.
There is another factor with the online services that may impact some churches in the near future. People have had an opportunity to view numerous services. Some Sundays I've watched 3-4 different services. Yesterday I watched two services, one from my home town and one in Cleveland, OH. I've watched only a portion of some services and found that they did not appeal to me at all. In some cases it was the music, in others it was the preaching style or quality of the message, and in a few cases things just seemed odd for some reason. When this is over I wonder how many people will decide to change churches due to their finding one that seemed to be a better fit for them than the one they've been attending.
We can criticize such consumer mentality if we want, but that doesn't make it any less real. There is a reason why people attend the church they attend, and if they find one that seems to be a better fit it's very possible they will make a change. People's lives change over the years, and everybody doesn't need the same thing from a church they did when they were at a different stage of their lives. A family of three small children might choose to attend a church with a strong children's and youth ministry. When the couple turns 70 they may have different needs or the church might have changed since they began attending there, and their church is no longer a good fit for this stage in their lives.
One church leader suggested a few years ago that we were approaching a time when people might attend three different churches. They would be involved in one church for its youth ministry; they might attend a Bible study offered by another church; and they might attend the worship service of a church with a strong music or pulpit ministry. The point he was making was that the days of a family attending one church all their lives unless they moved were over. Of course, this raises a lot of interesting questions. Will they financially support all three churches? Which church, if any, will they become involved in as far as serving in some area of ministry? I'm sure you can think of other questions.
This pandemic is going to have an impact on churches just as it has had on small businesses. Many small businesses will not reopen. Others may try to reopen, but at reduced capacity they may find they can't be profitable enough to remain open. I expect to see some churches not reopen their doors. Others may reopen but find that too many of their people did not return choosing to go to other churches they discovered online. These churches will also close.
We may not know how the pandemic will impact churches until a year passes, but it's safe to say that there will be changes. If your church leadership is not talking about how your church may change in the coming months, that conversation needs to happen now. You may want to bring in someone from your denomination or a consultant to help lead this discussion. If you think that everything is going to return to normal you are apt to be sadly mistaken.
A couple of weeks ago I was talking with an individual who said his family were attending services at a small, rural church that was holding on-site services. He said the online services of their home church were OK for a time, but they had grown tired of them. They wanted to be with people in a worship service.
There is another factor with the online services that may impact some churches in the near future. People have had an opportunity to view numerous services. Some Sundays I've watched 3-4 different services. Yesterday I watched two services, one from my home town and one in Cleveland, OH. I've watched only a portion of some services and found that they did not appeal to me at all. In some cases it was the music, in others it was the preaching style or quality of the message, and in a few cases things just seemed odd for some reason. When this is over I wonder how many people will decide to change churches due to their finding one that seemed to be a better fit for them than the one they've been attending.
We can criticize such consumer mentality if we want, but that doesn't make it any less real. There is a reason why people attend the church they attend, and if they find one that seems to be a better fit it's very possible they will make a change. People's lives change over the years, and everybody doesn't need the same thing from a church they did when they were at a different stage of their lives. A family of three small children might choose to attend a church with a strong children's and youth ministry. When the couple turns 70 they may have different needs or the church might have changed since they began attending there, and their church is no longer a good fit for this stage in their lives.
One church leader suggested a few years ago that we were approaching a time when people might attend three different churches. They would be involved in one church for its youth ministry; they might attend a Bible study offered by another church; and they might attend the worship service of a church with a strong music or pulpit ministry. The point he was making was that the days of a family attending one church all their lives unless they moved were over. Of course, this raises a lot of interesting questions. Will they financially support all three churches? Which church, if any, will they become involved in as far as serving in some area of ministry? I'm sure you can think of other questions.
This pandemic is going to have an impact on churches just as it has had on small businesses. Many small businesses will not reopen. Others may try to reopen, but at reduced capacity they may find they can't be profitable enough to remain open. I expect to see some churches not reopen their doors. Others may reopen but find that too many of their people did not return choosing to go to other churches they discovered online. These churches will also close.
We may not know how the pandemic will impact churches until a year passes, but it's safe to say that there will be changes. If your church leadership is not talking about how your church may change in the coming months, that conversation needs to happen now. You may want to bring in someone from your denomination or a consultant to help lead this discussion. If you think that everything is going to return to normal you are apt to be sadly mistaken.
Friday, May 29, 2020
The pastor and counseling
One of the lessons I learned fairly early as a pastor was that I was not a counselor. One of the reasons I decided to go to a Bible college was because I thought I could learn to be a better counselor only I found out they didn't offer instruction in counseling. Fortunately, I learned enough other things there that made up for it.
Still, I tried to counsel people when they came asking for counseling. The premarital counseling went pretty good, and I was comfortable doing that. But when it came to counseling people for serious problems, I was not good at all. It was during a session with a couple with a troubled marriage when I realized I couldn't help these people. I wasn't trained to provide the in-depth care they needed. When we met for our second session I explained to the couple that I wanted to be the best pastor to them I could, and for me to do that I needed to refer them to someone trained to help them work through their marriage issues. I assured them I would provide pastoral care, but I could not provide counseling. I recommended a Christian counseling service with which I was familiar and told the couple that after their first visit with a counselor there to call me to set up a meeting to talk about how they felt it went. I never got that call.
Many of us in pastoral ministry have never received any training as counselors, or if we did it was likely very introductory training. It certainly was not enough for us to consider ourselves trained in the best methods of counseling, and I would imagine that even fewer would have continued that training as counselors to keep up on the latest developments in the field. Without that expertise we do those who come to us a disservice.
A training program our region offered included a pastoral track for bivocational ministers. Nearly every year someone would ask when we were going to offer a course on counseling. I would remind everyone that our courses were all introductory in nature. Each course consisted of four six-hour classes. That is hardly enough time to train someone to counsel others.
If I was a pastor moving into a new community some of the first people I would want to meet would be the counselors who serve that community. I would want to find out the counseling they specialize in: marriage difficulties, addictions, depression and anxiety, etc. I would want to know their fees and if they offer sliding fees for those who need financial help to receive counseling. I would certainly want to know their attitudes towards persons of faith. Some in the counseling field are likely to blame any problems a person has on their religious beliefs. I would ask about their education. After learning as much as I could I would make a list of the ones I could be comfortable referring people to.
Many churches expect their pastors to provide counseling. I occasionally look at job descriptions listed on pastoral search sites where it will state that the pastor is to provide counseling. If I was candidating at that church I would make clear that I would do not long-term counseling but I would refer persons to qualified counselors while I continued to offer pastoral care to the individual. If that is not acceptable to the church it's better to find that out before you accept the position.
Besides referral, there is another thing a church could do. It could offer a counseling center a space in their building for a counselor to work out of perhaps one day a week. I've seen churches do this. Churches with the financial means to do so might pay a portion of the fees their members might incur during counseling. One caution, absolute confidentiality would have to be maintained from those who might be working in the church when people came for counseling. A separate entrance near the space might be used to help assure that confidentiality.
People seek counseling for a host of issues and problems today, many of which are outside the realm of a pastor's training and expertise. In order to provide the best pastoral care it is mandatory that we seek to refer these individuals to people with the training and skills to help them. We can offer pastoral care and support, we can pray for them and encourage them from the Scriptures, but sometimes that is not enough to help them through some issues with deep roots. That is when we need to send them to someone who can walk with them through the healing process they need.
Still, I tried to counsel people when they came asking for counseling. The premarital counseling went pretty good, and I was comfortable doing that. But when it came to counseling people for serious problems, I was not good at all. It was during a session with a couple with a troubled marriage when I realized I couldn't help these people. I wasn't trained to provide the in-depth care they needed. When we met for our second session I explained to the couple that I wanted to be the best pastor to them I could, and for me to do that I needed to refer them to someone trained to help them work through their marriage issues. I assured them I would provide pastoral care, but I could not provide counseling. I recommended a Christian counseling service with which I was familiar and told the couple that after their first visit with a counselor there to call me to set up a meeting to talk about how they felt it went. I never got that call.
Many of us in pastoral ministry have never received any training as counselors, or if we did it was likely very introductory training. It certainly was not enough for us to consider ourselves trained in the best methods of counseling, and I would imagine that even fewer would have continued that training as counselors to keep up on the latest developments in the field. Without that expertise we do those who come to us a disservice.
A training program our region offered included a pastoral track for bivocational ministers. Nearly every year someone would ask when we were going to offer a course on counseling. I would remind everyone that our courses were all introductory in nature. Each course consisted of four six-hour classes. That is hardly enough time to train someone to counsel others.
If I was a pastor moving into a new community some of the first people I would want to meet would be the counselors who serve that community. I would want to find out the counseling they specialize in: marriage difficulties, addictions, depression and anxiety, etc. I would want to know their fees and if they offer sliding fees for those who need financial help to receive counseling. I would certainly want to know their attitudes towards persons of faith. Some in the counseling field are likely to blame any problems a person has on their religious beliefs. I would ask about their education. After learning as much as I could I would make a list of the ones I could be comfortable referring people to.
Many churches expect their pastors to provide counseling. I occasionally look at job descriptions listed on pastoral search sites where it will state that the pastor is to provide counseling. If I was candidating at that church I would make clear that I would do not long-term counseling but I would refer persons to qualified counselors while I continued to offer pastoral care to the individual. If that is not acceptable to the church it's better to find that out before you accept the position.
Besides referral, there is another thing a church could do. It could offer a counseling center a space in their building for a counselor to work out of perhaps one day a week. I've seen churches do this. Churches with the financial means to do so might pay a portion of the fees their members might incur during counseling. One caution, absolute confidentiality would have to be maintained from those who might be working in the church when people came for counseling. A separate entrance near the space might be used to help assure that confidentiality.
People seek counseling for a host of issues and problems today, many of which are outside the realm of a pastor's training and expertise. In order to provide the best pastoral care it is mandatory that we seek to refer these individuals to people with the training and skills to help them. We can offer pastoral care and support, we can pray for them and encourage them from the Scriptures, but sometimes that is not enough to help them through some issues with deep roots. That is when we need to send them to someone who can walk with them through the healing process they need.
Thursday, May 28, 2020
Do we even know what we are criticizing?
As I continue to read Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Roger Olson I am struck by the comments made by Calvinist theologians against Arminian theology. The book highlights some of the myths and false charges made against Arminian theology by its critics, and one has to wonder if these accusers had ever actually studied this theology they are criticizing. Their claims seem to be so wrong that one has to wonder how they formed the opinions they have.
Of course, this is not the first time I've seen this type of disconnect in the church world. As an American Baptist I've heard numerous criticisms made against our denomination. Some of these I agree with, but many of them cause me to shake my head. I don't know where some people get their ideas unless they are reading headlines without actually reading and attempting to confirm the story. I certainly do not pretend our denomination is without flaws, but we are nothing like some critics would make us appear to be.
The same thing could be said of political adversaries from both parties. I grow weary of claims made by both sides against their political rivals that are obviously not true, and even when they are true, they are often true of people from both parties. The hypocrisy found in politics is incredible. It makes one wonder how some of these people sleep at night knowing of their deceit and hypocrisy.
Sadly, we find the same thing happening in churches. Pastors are often accused of failings that are not true and reflect more on the accuser than the pastor. As a judicatory minister I was once called to a leadership meeting in a church where complaints were made against the pastor. One of those complaints had to do with the lack of growth the church had experienced since this pastor arrived. The fact is, this church had been in decline for many years before this particular pastor was called to the church, but facts had nothing to do with the complaint. I turned the charge onto the one making it and asked how many years he had attended that church. (All his life) I then asked how many people had he brought into the church during his lifetime. He couldn't name any. The meeting ended soon after that discussion. When everyone left I encouraged the pastor to move to another church as soon as possible.
We live in a rebellious age. We are quick to criticize and complain whether we have the facts or not. Newspaper headlines blare the latest charge against the politician it doesn't support, and any required retractions are buried on page 34. We see a piece of a video and assume we know everything that occurred forgetting how easy it is for someone to spin a story with offering only the pieces of information that support their perspective.
Why is it so difficult to listen to both sides of an issue before forming an opinion? Why do we demand people take action before we actually know for certain what we are talking about? Why do we criticize the beliefs of others without even knowing what those beliefs are?
Proverbs 18: 17 tells us, "There are two sides to every story. The first one to speak sounds true until you hear the other side and they set the record straight." Let's be sure we have the facts right before we start criticizing.
Of course, this is not the first time I've seen this type of disconnect in the church world. As an American Baptist I've heard numerous criticisms made against our denomination. Some of these I agree with, but many of them cause me to shake my head. I don't know where some people get their ideas unless they are reading headlines without actually reading and attempting to confirm the story. I certainly do not pretend our denomination is without flaws, but we are nothing like some critics would make us appear to be.
The same thing could be said of political adversaries from both parties. I grow weary of claims made by both sides against their political rivals that are obviously not true, and even when they are true, they are often true of people from both parties. The hypocrisy found in politics is incredible. It makes one wonder how some of these people sleep at night knowing of their deceit and hypocrisy.
Sadly, we find the same thing happening in churches. Pastors are often accused of failings that are not true and reflect more on the accuser than the pastor. As a judicatory minister I was once called to a leadership meeting in a church where complaints were made against the pastor. One of those complaints had to do with the lack of growth the church had experienced since this pastor arrived. The fact is, this church had been in decline for many years before this particular pastor was called to the church, but facts had nothing to do with the complaint. I turned the charge onto the one making it and asked how many years he had attended that church. (All his life) I then asked how many people had he brought into the church during his lifetime. He couldn't name any. The meeting ended soon after that discussion. When everyone left I encouraged the pastor to move to another church as soon as possible.
We live in a rebellious age. We are quick to criticize and complain whether we have the facts or not. Newspaper headlines blare the latest charge against the politician it doesn't support, and any required retractions are buried on page 34. We see a piece of a video and assume we know everything that occurred forgetting how easy it is for someone to spin a story with offering only the pieces of information that support their perspective.
Why is it so difficult to listen to both sides of an issue before forming an opinion? Why do we demand people take action before we actually know for certain what we are talking about? Why do we criticize the beliefs of others without even knowing what those beliefs are?
Proverbs 18: 17 tells us, "There are two sides to every story. The first one to speak sounds true until you hear the other side and they set the record straight." Let's be sure we have the facts right before we start criticizing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)