Changing to a missionary church!

[norbie]

In our Newcastle Diocese we doing a study now from our Bishop Brian: changing to a missionary church.
Time have changed, up to 1960 the parish believe was, we pay our priest - put him high up on a pedestral and let him/ her do the work, including mission in the parish. It was a time were people came to the church.
Now we must change, we must became a 'New Testament" Church, see Acts of Apostels.:thumbsup: A church were the priest oversees and encourages spiritual his parishoners, but the people do the mission work. People going out in the world and model, wittness a christlike life.
I think this is the challenge of our century.
So I started this thread that maybe we can exchange ideas about a missionary church, it would help all of us I think. Would you like to help with your ideas about people becoming a missionary church?

[IowaLutheran]

A missionary church is centered in Word and Sacrament. Mission includes not only what goes on beyond the doors of the Church, but also what happens during the liturgy. Personal witness beyond church doors is important, but if it is not grounded in Word and Sacrament, it is not apostolic - Justin Martyr's account of early liturgies focuses on the fact that mission to others is a part of worship.

A missionary church, as you say, cannot rely on the priest to do all the work. Inspired by the grace of God, all Christians are called to visit the sick, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and visit those in prison. In other words, pastoral care is not the exclusive duty of the pastor. A missional church emphasizes that care comes from the whole community. The laity should also be visiting elderly people who can no longer come to worship, the hospitalized, and others who need care.

[karen freeinchristman]

A missionary church is centered in Word and Sacrament. Mission includes not only what goes on beyond the doors of the Church, but also what happens during the liturgy. Personal witness beyond church doors is important, but if it is not grounded in Word and Sacrament, it is not apostolic - Justin Martyr's account of early liturgies focuses on the fact that mission to others is a part of worship.

A missionary church, as you say, cannot rely on the priest to do all the work. Inspired by the grace of God, all Christians are called to visit the sick, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and visit those in prison. In other words, pastoral care is not the exclusive duty of the pastor. A missional church emphasizes that care comes from the whole community. The laity should also be visiting elderly people who can no longer come to worship, the hospitalized, and others who need care.
This is true, and in order to become like this, the laity needs to be taught well. Both on the receiving side and the giving side, if the laity aren't taught that this is how things should be, then in my experience, they are not satisfied unless it is the ordained minister who visits them. Good teaching of what mission is and equipping the laity to engage in it is essential.

[pmcleanj]

... up to 1960 the parish believe was, we pay our priest - put him high up on a pedestral and let him/ her do the work, including mission in the parish. It was a time were people came to the church.
Now we must change, we must became a 'New Testament" Church, see Acts of Apostels.:thumbsup: A church were the priest oversees and encourages spiritual his parishoners, but the people do the mission work. People going out in the world and model, witness a christlike life.
I think this is the challenge of our century....I heartily agree that the time has come to reclaim the model of the New Testament Church.

Do you think, Norbie, that this is a necessity that we must shoulder because we no longer have the demographics of the 1960's -- that is, essentially, a way of making the best of a bad thing?

Or do you think that this is an opportunity that we are blessed with because we no longer have to carry the weight of conformity to the social order?

[karen freeinchristman]

Pamela, though your question was asked of Norbie, I'm not sure I understand it. Can you please rephrase your question or expand on it a bit? thanks! :)

[norbie]

I heartily agree that the time has come to reclaim the model of the New Testament Church.

Do you think, Norbie, that this is a necessity that we must shoulder because we no longer have the demographics of the 1960's -- that is, essentially, a way of making the best of a bad thing?

Or do you think that this is an opportunity that we are blessed with because we no longer have to carry the weight of conformity to the social order?

I would say it is a blessed opportunity in a way that we finally realise, and mostly our Newcastle Bishop, that if we don't use 'all our resourses - our God given gifts' we will further decline. The old testament church is a great rollmodel in this. Paul was overlooking his new established churches, but they did the missionary work, the growing on their own. We can also see the support Paul gives them in his letters, like guidiance and advise. And we can and should apply this today to grow for the glory of God. Compare todays priest with Paul who gives spiritual support, and all practical help to use our gifts in apostolic action.
There is sooo much to do, like the welfare section of the church, the youth section, baptism, funnerals and so on. There is a never ending demand to use our gifts in ministry=serving. If we laypeople don't "wake-up" now to our baptism 'duty' as a member of the church - we losing it.
I think we also can support each other here in the CF in sharing how we are involved, how we use our God given gift for apostolic work in our church.
My example, it's not much but I do it full 100%: from cleaning the church every weekend, to senior server, cruzifer, chalic assistant and vestry man. This is for the Sunday eucharist. For outreach I like promotion very much and do advertise all our function. It's not much - but if all members just take on a little job - the body of our church would be running very smoth and growing.
I realy would hope that other members of our STR would share their gifts, so we can improve and learn from each other, and of course strenghten our local church.
And we are not alone with this: on Sunday we celebrate the Eucharist, the reconcilliation with Christ, to receive our strenght for the whole week.

[karen freeinchristman]

I would say it is a blessed opportunity in a way that we finally realise, and mostly our Newcastle Bishop, that if we don't use 'all our resourses - our God given gifts' we will further decline. The old testament church is a great rollmodel in this. Paul was overlooking his new established churches, but they did the missionary work, the growing on their own. We can also see the support Paul gives them in his letters, like guidiance and advise. And we can and should apply this today to grow for the glory of God. Compare todays priest with Paul who gives spiritual support, and all practical help to use our gifts in apostolic action.
There is sooo much to do, like the welfare section of the church, the youth section, baptism, funnerals and so on. There is a never ending demand to use our gifts in ministry=serving. If we laypeople don't "wake-up" now to our baptism 'duty' as a member of the church - we losing it.
I think we also can support each other here in the CF in sharing how we are involved, how we use our God given gift for apostolic work in our church.
My example, it's not much but I do it full 100%: from cleaning the church every weekend, to senior server, cruzifer, chalic assistant and vestry man. This is for the Sunday eucharist. For outreach I like promotion very much and do advertise all our function. It's not much - but if all members just take on a little job - the body of our church would be running very smoth and growing.
I realy would hope that other members of our STR would share their gifts, so we can improve and learn from each other, and of course strenghten our local church.
And we are not alone with this: on Sunday we celebrate the Eucharist, the reconcilliation with Christ, to receive our strenght for the whole week.
:thumbsup: :amen: :clap:

[norbie]

Personal witness beyond church doors is important, but if it is not grounded in Word and Sacrament, it is not apostolic

So how did you get this? Don't you read the Acts, or better Pauls letters? So what about the most important part of mission and the greatest 'handycap' and 'turn off' for lot's of people: personal roll model for a Christlike life. This IS our greatest stumbling block: the daily witness to be a Christian, to act like a Christian. It's very, very hard in todays world. Sometime we even don't know anymore in our daily talks that we are not christlike. So not everything is grounded in Word and sacrament, BUT only our DAILY behaviour will bring people to Christ.
The time is gone were people come TO the church - today the church has to COME TO the people. And the lay-people have to give witnes and apostolic action every day.

[IowaLutheran]

Sometime we even don't know anymore in our daily talks that we are not christlike. So not everything is grounded in Word and sacrament, BUT only our DAILY behaviour will bring people to Christ.


I think you either misinterpreted my comments or we are on two totally separate wavelengths. I think Paul would most definitely agree that everything is grounded in the Word of God and not our behavior.

Everything in Christianity is grounded in the eternal Word of God incarnate, Jesus Christ. Our personal behavior and resulting good works are the fruit of belief in Christ, but this is certainly not where the Church is grounded.

As to what brings people to Church, it is the Holy Spirit that brings people to Christ. Again, our behavior may be the fruits of our belief, but it is the Holy Spirit working in us and in those who may come to Church that causes that behavior. If my behavior brings someone into the Church, the credit belongs to the Holy Spirit moving within me because the Spirit came upon me at the sacrament of my baptism. I deserve no credit whatsoever.

[norbie]

I think you either misinterpreted my comments or we are on two totally separate wavelengths. I think Paul would most definitely agree that everything is grounded in the Word of God and not our behavior.

Everything in Christianity is grounded in the eternal Word of God incarnate, Jesus Christ. Our personal behavior and resulting good works are the fruit of belief in Christ, but this is certainly not where the Church is grounded.

As to what brings people to Church, it is the Holy Spirit that brings people to Christ. Again, our behavior may be the fruits of our belief, but it is the Holy Spirit working in us and in those who may come to Church that causes that behavior. If my behavior brings someone into the Church, the credit belongs to the Holy Spirit moving within me because the Spirit came upon me at the sacrament of my baptism. I deserve no credit whatsoever.
This is wonderful. and I think we are very much on the same wave length. I fully agree with you: nothing is ours, our life is on loan from him, our King, Jesus Christ. And yes it is not us - but the holy spirit moving us into apostolic action.
But I was more interested in the practical way how we can become a missionary church. I was hoping that all people share their missionary outreach, and we all could lern and improve our work to the glory of God, like what is your missionary doing, are you involved in practical outreach like youth fellowship, welfare and so on. We could encouraging each other, this was my thought in this thread.

[karen freeinchristman]

Part of my personal way of being 'missional' takes place in my daily relationships with people. For example, my neighbours. We have neighbours that are about our same age, with kids that are about the same age as our kids. We get along really well with them. I feel our relationship with them is sooooo important, because we are virtually the only Christians in their group of friends, and we have a lot of contact with them and their kids. So basically, our example of loving them for who they are, accepting them, but also engaging them in some deep conversations about God as a possibility for them and as a reality for us, and what God's will is, really feels to me like true on-the-ground mission. We don't try to shove religion down their throats because that would be such a wrong move. Because to me, they represent a huge group of similar-minded people who are vaguely spiritual but rationalise away Jesus Christ as God. They also see loads of hypocracy in the church and find church services boring. I really love my neighbours, they challenge me, but I also think there is a huge opportunity there.

Similar thing goes for my agnostic friends at work.

[norbie]

Part of my personal way of being 'missional' takes place in my daily relationships with people. For example, my neighbours. We have neighbours that are about our same age, with kids that are about the same age as our kids. We get along really well with them. I feel our relationship with them is sooooo important, because we are virtually the only Christians in their group of friends, and we have a lot of contact with them and their kids. So basically, our example of loving them for who they are, accepting them, but also engaging them in some deep conversations about God as a possibility for them and as a reality for us, and what God's will is, really feels to me like true on-the-ground mission. We don't try to shove religion down their throats because that would be such a wrong move. Because to me, they represent a huge group of similar-minded people who are vaguely spiritual but rationalise away Jesus Christ as God. They also see loads of hypocracy in the church and find church services boring. I really love my neighbours, they challenge me, but I also think there is a huge opportunity there.

Similar thing goes for my agnostic friends at work.
Thank you, my Dear Lady this is the idea of my thread. It's a wonderful sharing and just pray that more CF members would join in.
So yes there is a great opportunity for you, in giving an example, a roll model of a Christlike Life. And in the end this people will come to ask themself, 'there must be something right about your christian believe.' I also believe that only with being a model in christianity, love and compassion will atract people to Jesus, to the Kingdom of God here on earth.
May I ask you when will you be ordained as a priest? (if this is to private please ignore it).

[karen freeinchristman]

Thank you, my Dear Lady this is the idea of my thread. It's a wonderful sharing and just pray that more CF members would join in.
So yes there is a great opportunity for you, in giving an example, a roll model of a Christlike Life. And in the end this people will come to ask themself, 'there must be something right about your christian believe.' I also believe that only with being a model in christianity, love and compassion will atract people to Jesus, to the Kingdom of God here on earth.
May I ask you when will you be ordained as a priest? (if this is to private please ignore it).
July 2009 as a deacon, then June 2010 priested.

I do agree that integrity as Christians is one of our highest callings and most effective way of mission. :thumbsup:

[junegillam]

Karen's way of being with her neighbors seems to me to be following Jesus's first commandment to love God first and, second, love your neighbors as your self.

If we could all enact this, what a world! Of course, this is earth, not heaven, but still...

[pmcleanj]

Pamela, though your question was asked of Norbie, I'm not sure I understand it. Can you please rephrase your question or expand on it a bit? thanks! :)

Sorry. I'm so strapped for time these days that a cryptic note is sometimes all I can manage.

Here's what I mean:

Often, we find ourselves thinking something along the lines of "in a perfect world, this would still be a time when people routinely came to church, our neighbours would all (or the vast majority) be church-goers, and we could carry on as we always did" -- leaving mission up to our hired clergy. We see ourselves as being forced into relying on lay efforts because of the unfortunate decline of the church. This is the view that declericalising mission is sad but necessary.

At Dr Craigie's Lay-school of Theology many years ago, the sessional instructor asked us each to write a speculative essay about the effects on the Church of a hypothetical legal act outlawing paid religious employment. What if no-one could be paid to do church-work? What if the only way for the Church to do anything were for volunteers to undertake the work? We followed up the exercise with a historical review of times and cultures when that condition did in fact exist: in the communist regimes of the forties through sixties, and in some new religious movements with different models of religious leadership. In the light of these investigations, it was possible to argue that being forced to declericalise ministry in fact empowers the church and restores to the laity their proper role, healing the clericalism that has been a source of sin for the Church. This is the view that declericalising mission is good, and overdue.

How a person comes down on the question of clericalism as a good thing, or a bad thing, affects the other questions we need to ask about lay mission work.

[karen freeinchristman]

Sorry. I'm so strapped for time these days that a cryptic note is sometimes all I can manage.

Here's what I mean:

Often, we find ourselves thinking something along the lines of "in a perfect world, this would still be a time when people routinely came to church, our neighbours would all (or the vast majority) be church-goers, and we could carry on as we always did" -- leaving mission up to our hired clergy. We see ourselves as being forced into relying on lay efforts because of the unfortunate decline of the church. This is the view that declericalising mission is sad but necessary.

At Dr Craigie's Lay-school of Theology many years ago, the sessional instructor asked us each to write a speculative essay about the effects on the Church of a hypothetical legal act outlawing paid religious employment. What if no-one could be paid to do church-work? What if the only way for the Church to do anything were for volunteers to undertake the work? We followed up the exercise with a historical review of times and cultures when that condition did in fact exist: in the communist regimes of the forties through sixties, and in some new religious movements with different models of religious leadership. In the light of these investigations, it was possible to argue that being forced to declericalise ministry in fact empowers the church and restores to the laity their proper role, healing the clericalism that has been a source of sin for the Church. This is the view that declericalising mission is good, and overdue.

How a person comes down on the question of clericalism as a good thing, or a bad thing, affects the other questions we need to ask about lay mission work.



Thanks!

How could we engender this attitude in spite of having paid clergy? In what ways could the clergy empower the laity better to do this, in your view, Pamela? I have only a slight vested interest... ;)

[norbie]

Not employed and not paid clergy?
Well this is happened here in the Newcastle Diocese, in the country town of Murrurandi. The parish could not afford a priest anymore. So what was done in a conferrence with +Brian. 6 of the parish members did a 12 month external schooling with a long weekend 4x a year in Newcastle with the Bishop. It went very well and this laypeople doing a great job and the congregation is growing. The subject were: preaching and teaching, welfare and youth.
And this IS great lay-mission work, they split in groups for the above subjects and everybody doing his/her job or better, using his/her gift given from God for the small community of Murrurandi. They are all volunteers, have a paid job, private or in puplic service. And all people knowing at work what they are doing, in trying hard to be a model, to live a Christlike life - they make the outside people think a little, maybe it is good to find the way back to God.
And this IS true New Testament Church Mission I think.:amen:

[pmcleanj]

Thanks!

How could we engender this attitude in spite of having paid clergy? In what ways could the clergy empower the laity better to do this, in your view, Pamela? I have only a slight vested interest... ;)

This is a good question, and I don't think the answer is obvious. In fact, when I read IowaLutheran's post below, it inspired me to wonder whether empowering the laity really is a legitimate clerical function. The distinctive role of the Priest is to celebrate the sacraments of Holy Communion and Reconciliation. The role of the Deacon is to proclaim the word and teach, and administer the pastoral sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony. But when it comes to empowering, the Bible tells us "remember that ye encourage one another.

The reality is that in this present age, the incumbent cleric's primary job is to be the senior parish administrator -- which is not in fact an ordained function. Empowering and coordinating others is something MBA's are trained to do. Maybe we should be drawing our Rectors from business colleges, instead of seminaries:cool: .

Maybe Iowa can comment more?

[IowaLutheran]

Maybe Iowa can comment more?


My thoughts on this were influenced by an Episcopal Bishop and a Lutheran seminary professor, so I have both bases covered!

A few years ago when I was trying to figure out what my calling was, I met with the Episcopal Bishop of my area to see if I could serve in some sort of joint Lutheran/Anglican diaconal role in the area. (I later figured out my call was to ordained sacramental ministry so I am now a candidate for ordination in the ELCA). The Bishop was quite strong in his beliefs that deacons were to be more than "mini-priests" in the liturgy - through means of service, they are to bring the church to the world and the world into the church. To accomplish this kind of servant ministry, the deacon cannot do it alone. To do the kinds of service Jesus calls us to do (Matthew 25 - feed the hungry, visit the sick, etc.) the laity are to be encouraged to do these things as well.

Later, my seminary class on pastoral care focused not only what the pastor does in caring for parishioners, but in encouraging a model of communal care. Of course, the pastor should be the primary person doing the hospital calls, etc., but again, the pastor cannot do it alone. Even in a small congregation where the pastor can easily visit everyone, it is preferable for the laity to care for one another along in addition to the pastor's care. The pastor can encourage others to do communion visits to nursing homes and shut-ins, and coordinate other visits as well.

[pmcleanj]

...Of course, the pastor should be the primary person doing the hospital calls, etc., ...

This surprises me. Why should the pastor (presuming you mean the vicar or incumbent or rector or priest-in-charge) be the primary person doing the hospital calls?

[IowaLutheran]

This surprises me. Why should the pastor (presuming you mean the vicar or incumbent or rector or priest-in-charge) be the primary person doing the hospital calls?

My experience in talking with dozens of pastors, priests, seminarians, etc.m is that the pastor (Lutherans use the word "pastor" as a catch-all term for ordained ministry instead of all those English terms you're throwing at me!) is usually expected to be the focal person for pastoral care, including visitations. That is a part of the call that is put in writing between the pastor and the parish. If the pastor isn't the one doing it, there is normally an expectation that it is getting done by someone else and the pastor is at least aware that it is getting done. My use of the word "primary" was perhaps misleading.

[norbie]

My experience in talking with dozens of pastors, priests, seminarians, etc.m is that the pastor (Lutherans use the word "pastor" as a catch-all term for ordained ministry instead of all those English terms you're throwing at me!) is usually expected to be the focal person for pastoral care, including visitations. That is a part of the call that is put in writing between the pastor and the parish. If the pastor isn't the one doing it, there is normally an expectation that it is getting done by someone else and the pastor is at least aware that it is getting done. My use of the word "primary" was perhaps misleading.
And here we clearly can see the difference between 'hanging on to old tradition', this is put the priest, pastor up on a pedestral, assume we pay him so he should do "the work". This is not Pauls church in the new testament. Paul = Pastor or Priest, established a new church, selected members to keep it going and also growing. If they had a problem they communicated, and they had problems as we can see in his letters.
Todays church is different from the 1950: people are not coming to the church - the church must go out to the people.
What are you creating is a "super human", goes to hospitals, old age home, youth fellowship and so on. It's impossible, it can't work this way and the church suffers.
Today we must TRAIN the new clergy to overlook, guide and spiritualy encourage the layity to go out into the world and model a christlike life, especialy on the workplace, visit, welfare, youth and so on.
There must be training sessions hold by the clergy, most likely on Saturdays, how to visit and talk in hospitals and other welfare groups. There must be training how to run a youth fellowship for parishioners with interest for this. And clergy also must make sure that there are more people on the same group, because one can get burned out.
So there is so much important work to do now for the N.T. church for the clergy - so to go out to visit hospital would be behind their time availible to them.
The clergy job now is to train parishioners to go out and use their gifts and be part of the missionary church.;)

[karen freeinchristman]

I agree with you, Norbie.

[IowaLutheran]

The clergy job now is to train parishioners to go out and use their gifts and be part of the missionary church.;)

Also agreed. My comments on what the pastor is expected to do should not be confused with my beliefs on what they should be doing. See my first post in this thread (#2).

[pmcleanj]

Lutherans use the word "pastor" as a catch-all term for ordained ministry instead of all those English terms you're throwing at me!

Underlying the question that Norbie asks is another question: what are the roles of our clergy, and how are they distinct? Are they professionals doing a specified job, like a doctor or engineer? Or are they in some way set aside and different from the rest of God's people. And I have observed a fundamental difference in the way Lutherans and Anglicans answer these questions.

Lutherans accept only two sacraments: baptism and communion. For them, what distinguishes a cleric is his call. As it was explained to me by the members of our ELCIC parish council: a seminarian who has completed his training cannot be ordained until he or she is called by a congregation to be their pastor. The congregation's call is the evidence that he is called by God to the pastorate, in response to which, he is ordained. Although Lutherans don't have the theological concept of a sacramental ordination, a person called to be the pastor-in-charge of a congregation is theologically understood to be a priest, but is usually not called "priest" in the congregation in order not to undermine the congregations self-understanding as priests in the Priesthood of all Believers.

Anglican ordination is a sacramental ordination. When the Bishop lays hands on the candidate, an ontological change takes place that indelibly marks the new deacon, priest, or bishop; and empowers him or her for a new scope of ministry. A congregation will then engage that person to take on the ministry for which they are ordained. This model of the nature of ordination is characteristically episcopal, since orders derive from the Bishop -- who carries a crook in formal processions because it is he or she, the Bishop, who is the primary shepherd (or "pastor") of the flock.

There are, of course, evangelically oriented Anglicans who use the term "Pastor" for their local cleric-in-charge. They have different reasons for so doing. Some intentionally use the term to emphasise their contention that the role of Bishop is and should be minimal in the life of their parish. Some do so because it is the practice of other non-episcopal congregations with whose theological style they identify.

Certainly, a professional engaged in an administrative/counselling position must fulfill the terms of his or her contract of employment, regardless of whether that contract of employment is called a Letter of Call. But Norbie's question is more one of whom should we be Calling on, to do the work of the church. Which roles require the ontological change that is conferred in sacramental ordination; which roles should be performed by paid employees of the church, and which roles are we Called to simply by the force of our Baptism or Confirmation.

Certainly the Pastor (which is to say, the Bishop) has the final responsibility before God to ensure that the Church is sustained and is doing the work of outreach. The parish priest is in a more ambiguous position. Depending on church polity he is an employee of either the parish, or an appointee of the Bishop's. If the parish has a perfectly adequate internal nurture programme -- ours uses the Stephen Ministry model, plus a system of trained hospital visitors -- and they are well coordinated by a lay administration, and the priest cooperates to the degree of taking on those particular visits that call for administering the sacraments of Unction or Reconciliation, then it is enough that the Bishop be confident that system is working without the priest having to take primary responsibility for it (and this, of course, is why I quibbled with your valid-lutheran-but-not-really-anglican usage of the loaded term "pastor").

[IowaLutheran]

I live in both worlds (I was an Anglican assisting minister at today's noon Good Friday service and will be a Lutheran assisting minister tonight at 7) so I understand the differences. I was being a bit facetious when I joked about those English terms. I did not realize the view of the term "pastor" though, because Roman Catholics use the term "pastor" to describe the priest assigned to a parish, so I assumed Anglicans, whether Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical, would be accustomed to that usage of the word.

I would quibble with your understanding of Lutheran sacramental theology - some of what you have stated is what is commonly assumed and taught but is not really correct. That would be way off topic however!

Ultimately, back to the point - I completely agree that it is the community's responsibility to care for one another and the world and not rely on a priest or pastor to do it all for them. Stephen's Ministries is a great example.

[pmcleanj]

And here we clearly can see the difference between 'hanging on to old tradition', this is put the priest, pastor up on a pedestral, assume we pay him so he should do "the work". This is not Pauls church in the new testament. Paul = Pastor or Priest, established a new church, selected members to keep it going and also growing. If they had a problem they communicated, and they had problems as we can see in his letters.
Todays church is different from the 1950: people are not coming to the church - the church must go out to the people.
What are you creating is a "super human", goes to hospitals, old age home, youth fellowship and so on. It's impossible, it can't work this way and the church suffers.
Today we must TRAIN the new clergy to overlook, guide and spiritualy encourage the layity to go out into the world and model a christlike life, especialy on the workplace, visit, welfare, youth and so on.
There must be training sessions hold by the clergy, most likely on Saturdays, how to visit and talk in hospitals and other welfare groups. There must be training how to run a youth fellowship for parishioners with interest for this. And clergy also must make sure that there are more people on the same group, because one can get burned out.
So there is so much important work to do now for the N.T. church for the clergy - so to go out to visit hospital would be behind their time availible to them.
The clergy job now is to train parishioners to go out and use their gifts and be part of the missionary church.;)

My brain is getting all twisted up like Ouroborus: the worm that twists back to devour its own tail. Why, for example, is it the clergy's job to train parishioners to go out and use their own gifts? Is that not just a different pedestal to put them up on?

And there is much more to empowering the laity than just training -- to coordinate the work of many people striving toward the same goal requires skilled and talented management and administration. We typically expect our rector to fill the role of parish administrator, and our seminaries train candidates in parish administration to equip them for that role. But is that really what a priest or deacon is called for? Do we select clergy based on their administrative talents, or on their potential as trainers, or do we select them for their calling to be ministers of the Eucharist and of Reconciliation? In modern North America managers and administrators are often held in contempt, with the "pointy-haired boss" of Dilbert fame being the archetype. But, in fact, management IS a distinct talent and one that should be valued. Are we valuing it when we slough it off onto our clergy as one more "other duty as assigned"? Perhaps that is one reason that we are so ineffective in administering and coordinating a coordinated lay mission.

One thought is that the role of the priest is to feed and sustain the laity through the ministry of Sacrament and the Word, and that those of the laity who are called to administration, management and training should equip those who are called to carry their witness out to the world. But then of course, we might be paying priests for something that is less than a full-time job. How would the church sustain such ministries?

[norbie]

Why, for example, is it the clergy's job to train parishioners to go out and use their own gifts?

I think what we didn't mention at all in our discussion was the size of the parish. This is why we maybe come to different conclusions. A parish with say 50 people can most likely just afford one clergy. So he has to be trained in administration, and do all other work, too.
A parish with 150 people will have the advance of employing a permanent office person, an all-rounder who would be everything, from pew slip typer and printer to telephone girl and administration. So this is great help in giving more time for the clergy to establish a more missionary church.
Why is it the clergy's job to train, or better as I would like to call it, to show and instruct how it is done? Because I do hope that Clergy schools do equip new clergy with this knowledge. To be a missionary church the clergy schools have to go in front of it, in showing our new clergy how to overlook different parish groups run by laity. And don't anyone out there should think that this is easy. We have all unpaid volountiers and it takes very great skill to tell someone he/she is wrong, or doing something wrong. You can loose them very quickly.
One thought is that the role of the priest is to feed and sustain the laity through the ministry of Sacrament and the Word,
I think we all agree with this I may ad encouragement and guidance.
Now for the second part there is maybe some discussion needed:
and that those of the laity who are called to administration, management and training should equip those who are called to carry their witness out to the world.
I believe there we have two different issues, like administration I think is a support tool for a missionary church - but itself is not an outreach, so this can be done by qualified managers, accountant and so on. Or the church building maintenance and so on.
But for example forming a youth fellowship, I would expect the clergy to be there in starting it up together with the laity and then only handed over and just study the feedback.
It would give the clergy the security that this group now is in good hands and can run on it's own. And so it is with all other parts of the parish.
A missionary church won't be overnight I think, but it will be the basic to stop the declining of people finding the way to God.

[karen freeinchristman]

But is that really what a priest or deacon is called for? Do we select clergy based on their administrative talents, or on their potential as trainers, or do we select them for their calling to be ministers of the Eucharist and of Reconciliation?

From the C of E Ordination Service:


Priests are called to be servants and shepherds among the people to whom they are sent. With their bishop and fellow-ministers, they are to proclaim the word of the Lord, and to watch for the signs of God’s new creation. They are to be messengers, watchmen and stewards of the Lord; they are to teach and to admonish, to feed and provide for his family, to search for his children in the wilderness of this world’s temptations, and to guide them through its confusions, that they may be saved through Christ for ever. Formed by the Word, they are to call their hearers to repentance and to declare in Christ’s name the absolution and forgiveness of their sins.
With all God’s people they are to tell the story of God’s love. They are to baptize new disciples in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and to walk with them in the way of Christ, nurturing them in the faith. They are to unfold the Scriptures, to preach the word in season and out of season, and to declare the mighty acts of God. They are to preside at the Lord’s table and lead his people in worship, offering with them a spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. They are to bless the people in God’s name. They are to resist evil, support the weak, defend the poor, and intercede for all in need. They are to minister to the sick and prepare the dying for their death. Guided by the Spirit, they are to discern and foster the gifts of all God’s people, that the whole Church may be built up in unity and faith.
(underline mine)

[norbie]

This is great Dear Karen, but don't you think we are dealing with 'super human' here? It's to much ask of one person to do a 100% job.
Just think about it, Preparing the Eucharist and the sermon, doing hospital visits, funerals, youth fellowship and all other welfare - this overloaded person defently has no time left for outreach. And this is why our church suffers, I believe. It's like the body of Christ, the church with only a head and other parts are missing.
It's so important now in this time to became a missionary church, in with EVERY parishionar has got his/her job. And the clergy be the head of this body which includes the brain, is to feed and guide the other parts to fully function.
What I am realy sad about is that you, Dear Karen are the only one who tells us what to think about a missionary church, and we have so many STR members in clergy school.
Sure we can all discuss what is the future of our churches and how can clergy and laity work together to restore the full body of Christ.

[Anglian]

Thank you all for an interesting and informative discussion. My own British Orthodox Church, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, is a mission Church to those in the UK who want Orthodoxy with a British 'ethos', so we face on a daily basis the trials you so well describe.

For us the priest is one called to a sacred mission, and his role is a Eucharistic and sacramental one. The deacons can do the administration and look after the fabric of the Church; they, and the readers, and the laity, can do the visiting of the sick and teaching in Sunday School. But only the priest can bring us the encounter with the Risen Christ at the Eucharistic Feast, and we try to keep him free of other things so that he can bring all his powers to bear on this life-giving function; and with a two hour Liturgy, he needs all the strength he can get.

It is so good to hear from others how they go about these things. And I do think that when we are all involved and don't (or aren't able) to leave it all to the priest that everyone benefits from the process.

My prayers are with us all as we try, according to our different traditions, to bring the Good News of the Risen Christ to a world standing in its usual sore need of it. May His blessings be with us all.

In peace,

Anglian

[norbie]

What a great thread replay, fully agree with you the priest has enough to do with the Eucharist, Holy Sacraments, funerals and so on. But your church must be quite a bit larger because you are talking of Deacons in the plural. This makes it a little easier.
But after all this answers, I still haven't got through with my purpose of this thread, namely to exchange missionary work in our churches. I thought we could swap ideas about missionary work and outreach.
What I had in mind was something like this:
Baptism of a baby who's parents don't come to church. So how do we become a missionary church in a case like this. Well, we follow this baby. A Easter card, Christmas card, enquiry how God's child is doing and so on. We deliver the monthly Anglican Encounter, our Newcastle Diocese paper, and so on.
And some families do respond.
So this was it what I meant with this thread: to exchange ideas for outreach.

[pmcleanj]

From the C of E Ordination Service:


Priests are called ... to discern and foster the gifts of all God’s people, that the whole Church may be built up in unity and faith.

(underline mine)
Fair enough. Thank-you for the source. I went and read the Common Worship services for Ordination and Consecration and found that they have a nice symmetry, with Declarations such as the above being made for each Order.

But of course while there are three Orders of clergy, there are four Orders of Ministry -- and I found Common Worship a little disappointing in its lack of similar Declarations in the service of Baptism and Confirmation. And that may well be part of the problem to be addressed: lex orandi, lex credo. Our liturgies are wishy-washy about the call of lay Christians to prosecute their ministry in the world, and hence our laity are wishy-washy in its prosecution.

I'd argue that its unreasonable to expect a priest to be talented liturgically and a talented pastoral care-giver and a talented teacher and a talented enabler and a talented administrator, as the Declaration implies; but I'd argue also that while the Declaration is sweeping in scope it doesn't imply that the priest has to be the primary player in any of those ministries except "to declare in Christ’s name the absolution and forgiveness of their sins" and "to preside at the Lord’s table".

But where talent is wanting, need must suffice. Priests-in-charge must accomplish all sorts of ministries through God's power even where they don't have the talent in general situations. I would propose that they will generally be most successful in so doing by praying for, and asking for, and delegating to the people that God brings them who do have the wanted talents and gifts. But that means relinquishing power. I attend a church that is just the opposite of what Norbie has been describing: where the leadership are so insecure that they undermine any attempts of the laity to minister in what they consider "their" domain; and discount or ignore the ministries that carry on despite them.

(more later... have to get to church before sunrise ... CHRIST IS RISEN, ALLELUIA)

[pmcleanj]

I think what we didn't mention at all in our discussion was the size of the parish. This is why we maybe come to different conclusions. A parish with say 50 people can most likely just afford one clergy. So he has to be trained in administration, and do all other work, too.

If I may be forgiven one of the buzz-phrases of modern managerial thought, I'm trying to "think outside the box" on this issue. As you say, we all agree that the priest is to feed and sustain the laity through the ministry of Sacrament and the Word, and (because she or he is responsible to the Bishop for the flock in that parish), to provide encouragement and guidance although not the sole source of encouragment and guidance.

Other than that, though, the idea that the priest must be a full-time paid employee of the parish is part of "the box" that constrains our thinking. Maybe, for example, a parish might have a part-time priest that does ONLY the things for which she or he is called, anointed, and/or gifted. And they have a part-time lay administrator who does what she or he is gifted for.

(and now I'm off to Easter Breakfast with the Presbyterians, so no mre until later ... HE IS RISEN INDEED, ALLELUIA!)

[norbie]

Other than that, though, the idea that the priest must be a full-time paid employee of the parish is part of "the box" that constrains our thinking. Maybe, for example, a parish might have a part-time priest that does ONLY the things for which she or he is called, anointed, and/or gifted. And they have a part-time lay administrator who does what she or he is gifted for.

(and now I'm off to Easter Breakfast with the Presbyterians, so no mre until later ... HE IS RISEN INDEED, ALLELUIA!)

As I said, the size of the congregation makes a big difference. But I fully agree with a part time priest, or even no paid priest like our Newcastle Diocese example. This parish of Mururrundi runs completly on it's own overlooked only by the Bishop himself. And sometime they have a retired priest on Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist.
And what you said in the post before about insecure leadership is very true. Other parishes do talk about like "oh well, but it's not the same as with a priest". They are completly wrong, because this 6 members (BTW all Cursillo members) have great spirit to keep this parish going.
May I ask you a question, please? what do you understand about missionary outreach? I refere to my sample of Baptism. How does your church go out into public? This questions interest me very much and I think we should exchange them to get a more focused outreach.

[norbie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFFlSb-Zsc8

This is an interesting watch about a missionary church.

[pmcleanj]

What do you understand about missionary outreach? I refere to my sample of Baptism. How does your church go out into public? This questions interest me very much and I think we should exchange them to get a more focused outreach.

First, I think that in reaching out to the public we must consider carefully just who that public are. What works in one environment can get you thrown in jail or stoned in another; or may simply alienate your audience and destroy your effectiveness. What meets the needs of one group of people may be irrelevant to another. We need to spend some time first analyzing our mission field, meet the real needs of the people there, and let our witness take place in the context of such relevant service that we can offer them OTHER than evangelism. In other words, first feed the hungry, and make disciples of all nations as a spin-off effect of feeding the hungry.

So, for our church, I reason as follows: Canada,especially in urban area, is a strongly secular and multicultural, with a strong social value placed on tolerance for diversity. Overt evangelism such as delivering tracts is considered rude. Any emphasis on church-going is considered pietistic and probably hypocritical. Although 72% of Canadians call themselves Christian, about 30% of those attend church less often than once a year(!!!). These nominal non-attending Christians come mainly from the 25-to-30-year-old age group.

Our church is located in a transitional neighbourhood. On one side, new luxury townhouse-condominia are being marketted to young professional families. On the other side, low-cost housing and rental units are home to a high proportion of single-parent-headed young families. In between is a buffer zone of owner-occupied middle-class homes of largely retired couples, sometimes with partial custody of grandchildren.

Thus the largest proportion of homes in our neighbourhood are home to those 25-through-30-year-olds, many of whom are already friendly toward Christianity, who are in the process of setting up their families which is a time of life when people reevaluate thier values and support structures, who do not have church homes.

We started reaching out to the lower-income families east of the church. My own involvement with my foster children has helped me stay aware of what are the needs that single-parent families sometimes struggle to meet: extra-curricular classes that are scheduled during working hours, that operate at high cost, or that require parents to drive for transportation, are often out of touch for these families. So, we offered a lay-run children's choir, in the early eveing so that children could walk to and from the church, at no cost.

The choir operated for two years, with marginal success in getting participation from the neighbourhood. But in the course of working with these children and their parents, we found another need -- that they are starving for religious celebrations and festivals that they can participate in and feel meaningful about. When they heard about our Candlemas procession, all the children and some of the parents said "Oh, how I wish we could do that!" I wrote this proposal (http://www.logrus.ca/HomeChurchWeb/AnglicanNotes/HolyDayOutreach.html) for our church in response to the influx of new "rootless" families into our neighbourhood and their expressed wish to take part in such events.

So far, church council hasn't taken any action on the proposal, nor have any of the people I've shared it with shown any enthusiasm for it. I've pushed my own vision of an active every-day church for too long to be willing to carry this one without the support of the rest of the church. I'm already carrying the children's lesson and the intergenerational bible-study: I'm full. And our priest has, through his actions over the last decade, made it very clear that he wants to be the one doing the ministry and would prefer not to have to coordinate around anyone else's interference. On the other hand and despite the priest's apparent disregard for lay ministry, the church has started a "mom's night out" for the same group of neighbours, where the church puts on a movie once a month, provides popcorn, transportation and daycare; and invites single parents over for a movie night. It's faltering but so far managing to carry on.

[norbie]

What a great sharing, my Dear Lady. There are a lot of things which seems to be "international", like one alone can get burned out, some priest are still "in the old church": we get paid, we do the job, without realising that it is impossible to do all jobs 100%. This is a job for the clergy school to bring out New Testament church leaders.
I just come back from our annual parish meeting. And it was great joy: our new rector is very open minded to delegate jobs and to form groups which work on their own, the rector just overlooking things.
I was very privileged to got nominated and elected to the management commitee of "Angly Care" (under the name of Samaritian in some churches - but it is the same.).
So what happened: we confirmed that Ministry (serving) is in two groups. The support group which is nessesary for the daily run of our church: from administration to mowing the lawn of the church yard. And the outreach group which thinks like you, children lessons, bible study and so on, in other words "apostolic Action".
We will have a pram service, a kindergarden, a footy show on the big screen. Our parishionars agreed to take turns to cook and cakes for after the family service on sunday and this food will be availiable to poor people, specialy single mothers.
Of course we are blessed in this that somebody donated a big furniture shop, a great hall right in the centre of Muswellbrook which is our Samaritan/Angly Care centre.
So the question arrise is, would it be possible somebody to ask your parish priest if he thinks that he has enough time to do all things on his own. Some important outreach has to suffer. Also it seems that your parish councillors are more mature aged people with the aptitude 'leave everything as it is'.
Ofcourse it makes a big difference if you vote in as councillors people who have teenage children: they will try the best for the future of their children.
Well, enough for tonight - I hope we all could share more how we can became a missionary church for the glory of God. It would also be good to know what our students think, the future clergy how they see the future grow of the body of Christ, the Kingdom of God in this very secular world.